Why I voted for Donald Trump in 2020.

I think some people have misunderstood some of the things I've said. Let me be very clear about something. I am NOT a Trump supporter. Like all politicians, I think he is a insane sociopath, and in all likelihood, a full-on son of Belial.

The problem is that I am very concerned about the political left. Ideologically, they have become radicalized, and with all the riots and violence, it is apparent they have become militarized.

For modern liberals, it isn't enough for those on the conservative end of the political divide to step out of the way. No. Liberals demand they actually AGREE with them, haranguing dissent with long, hateful lectures, using politically charged titles like "racist" and "homophobe" to paint all dissenters into the same light. It is never enough to allow leftist policies to become reality, but the sentiments must also change. Conservatives must embrace them as the right thing to do, or they, in essence, become enemies of the state. Are you pro-Capitalism? If yes, then you hate the poor in America and want to see them dissolve. Are you pro-life? Then you hate women and want to see the continuation of a corrupt patriarchal society. Are you against the tenants of the Communistic "Black Lives Matter" agenda? Then you are a racist. Do you want migration to only occur through legal channels? Then you are a xenophobe. Does you religion teach that homosexual behavior is a sin? Then you are a homophobe. This is the mindset of the left.

This type of thinking, the type that wants to control the sentiments and opinions of a nation, and suppresses free-thought, concerns me. And it should concern all who love individual liberty. And it really should concern Christians. Because, in the end, even if you don't take your religion into the courthouses, just the simple fact that a religion merely EXISTS that doesn't embrace these alternative lifestyles as acceptable will eventually become intolerable to them, and will need to be controlled, if not eliminated. Even if only adherents of the religion practice them, the idea will continually grow more and more hateful. It will be be viewed, more and more, as a disease... as a Cancer that needs excised from the nation.

Also consider that the liberal left want to replace the Electoral College a popular vote for elections. This puts the choice for president in the hands of three or four major cities, essentially silencing the voices of the heartland, farmlands, and forested rural areas on who their choice in President would be based on the ideas and values of their respected communities.

And of course, consider that the more dependent upon government the people are, the more likely they are to vote for the perceived "humanitarian" candidate that makes the most lavish promises to expand the availability of government subsidies, endowments, and provisions. As government expands these entitlement programs, government grows in size and scope. And, as people grow dependent upon these services, the less viable the reduction of the size of government becomes.

Not that I think Donald Trump is the answer. Being a Christian, I am full aware that the true issue is sin. Satan is behind it all. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, not a politician, nor a political ideology, is the cure for the nation.

So, why did I vote for Donald Trump in 2020?

The polls were showing that the Democrats were likely going to take the Senate in the 2020 election. Combine that with a Biden win, and you have Democrats with unchecked power. Donald Trump's veto power as president would be a check to that power. My political ideology is libertarian. We want a government that is as noninvasive to the individual as possible. Maximum individual liberty, as opposed to the bloated regulatory power the state currently claims. A Democratically controlled Congress with a Republican president is essentially a deadlocked government. This is a temporarily ideal circumstance from a libertarian standpoint. It is what C. S. Lewis colloquially called a "stagnation" scenario. A government that essentially can't do anything, since it is surrounded by opposing ideologies that serve as political brick walls that prevents almost any policy change. When government changes policy, or enacts new policy, it is almost assured that it will grant them more regulatory power to control some aspect of life.

So, my vote wasn't to throw support to a candidate, but to hopefully promote a governmental structure conducive to impotent government and to prevent further erosion of our individual liberties for at least two years.

My Thoughts on PPE for COVID19

First of all, a disclaimer. It has been decades since I've worked in the medical industry, and it is entirely possible that standards have changed much since my time.

I admit, I thought it odd when the government started calling for citizens to wear PPE to prevent the spread of the Novel Coronavirus associated with the COVID19 outbreak (SARS-CoV-2). It seemed to contradict what I'd been taught during my time working in the hospital when dealing with contagious diseases.

Back in the early 90's, our primary worry was Hepatitus, Tubercolosis (TB), Scabies (body lice), and, of course, AIDS. Admittance of a patient even suspected of having any of these would mean putting the patient in isolation. Outside an isolated patient's door would be a cart where healthcare workers could dress out in PPE before entering the patient's room.

And, there were rules. Of course, wearing gloves and handwashing was stressed for all patient interaction, except perhaps something simple like taking vital signs. But the PPE required for isolation patients included masks, gowns, booties, hair nets, and of course, gloves.

The rule was simple. If entrance into a room required a mask, it also required full PPE dress-out. The logic was as follows. Masks primarily protects the patient from the healthcare worker, not the other way around. If a patient was immuno-compromised, such as a HIV positive patient, or a patient who had recently received Cancer treatment, it was imperative to protect the patient from outside contagions. But masks were considered fairly useless in protecting healthcare workers from contracting contagious diseases from patients. And if you were caught entering a isolated patient's room wearing only a mask, you would have been, at the very least, laughed at, if not disciplined for not following hospital procedure in dealing with isolation patients.

Now, I understand the logic that any barrier is better than no barrier. But think about it. If an individual with the Coronavirus sneezes around you, the mask might prevent direct inhalation of the contaminated water vapor, but it will still settle on your skin and clothing. And when you undress for the day, most likely your skin and clothes will touch your face. But, if you were wearing full PPE, you had significantly less to worry about. The virus would have likely settled on the gowns and other PPE worn, which is discarded in a biohazard bin as soon as interaction with the patient is completed.

Again, my experience was decades ago, and maybe some standards have changed.

So, that begs the question, if a simple mask isn't as effective as the government would like us to believe, why are they stressing it's use? Well, I can only speculate, but I think it is a psychological ploy. When facing an emergency, the best way to prevent a full-blown panic is to occupy people. The old "go-boil-some-water" tactic that is used on husbands whose wives are in childbirth. People who wear masks BELIEVE they are doing something that is contributing to "flattening the curve" or whatever nomenclature the government wants to give to its efforts to combat the spread of the virus. It is keeping the people busy. They are taking advantage of the fact that we have essentially become a nation of "useful idiots", who have completely lost the ability to recognize when we are being manipulated and exploited.

Now, I'm not suggesting we don't take these precautions. But I suggest we do the homework. There's evidence that these efforts could prolong the pandemic. What do I fear more than a virus ravaging the world? The answer is simple. I fear an unthinking populace that will blindly follow its government off the side of a cliff like mindless lemmings when they perceive danger.

Alinsky's 8 Levels of Control

1. Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people.
2. Poverty - Increase the poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3. Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4. Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5. Welfare - Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6. Education - Take control of what people read and listen to - take control of what children learn in school.
7. Religion - Remove the belief in God from the government and schools.
8. Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Only God Can Judge Me

A common meme that has pervaded our society is the idea that, "Only God can judge me."

I have seen this more and more as our society slips from post-modernism, to post-Christian, on into being a fully anti-Christian society. The phrase apparently originated from famous rapper, the late Tupac Shakur.

While the concept, at its core, is theologically accurate, I would amend the quote by saying, "Only God will judge me." And even that is heavily dependent on how one defines "judge". If, by judging, we are declaring the eternal destination of an individual, that is a right that belongs only to God. However, what most people mean when they say, "Only God can judge me" is that everyone has their faults, and until you are perfect, you have no right to recognize or mention my own sins.

There are some problems with this.

First of all, what this statement inevitably leads to is a demand for the opposite of judging. I have discovered that when most people say this, they are actually fishing for affirmation for an activity or circumstance that is contrary to Biblical moral standards.

Secondly, Christians are instructed to judge, in the proper context. It is what the Bible calls "righteous judgement" (John 7:24). The Greek word there is "Krisis", which means seperation. We have to determine the things God calls sin, and shun those activities. Also, Christ's call to refrain from judgment is not a call to let sin run free. Imagine the disorder it would create. 1st Corinthians 5:11-13 says it better than I could. We are to disassociate. According to Romans 12:9, we are to hate evil, and cling to the good. How do we do that without determining (judging) which is which.

Also, instead of viewing it as judgment, it is actually a warning. Who wouldn't want to be warned when they are in imminent danger? If a parent has two young children, wouldn't that parent expect the older of the two children to stop and instruct the younger child when they start to do something dangerous, like touch a hot stove? That is what God wants. When a Christian starts dabbling in sin, God expects the older, more advanced, Christians to stand in the way and provoke that Christian back into righteous behavior.

Another aspect, and this is what grinds my gears more than anything. When suddenly, someone mentions the sin as something beautiful. You see this a lot with sexual sins, like homosexual behavior, or heterosexual behavior outside of marriage. No, it is not a beautiful thing. Sin always hurts God, and with sexual sin, always hurts the one who is doing it (1st Corinthians 6:18). Heterosexual behavior, within a marriage that God sanctions, is the only acceptable sexual behavior, according to Scripture (Hebrews 13:4).

Lastly... You cannot divorce Christianity or the Gospel from the idea of sin and the demand to meet a Biblical standard of morality. The problem with trying to remove sin from Christianity is that it invalidates the entire message of Christianity. You might as well throw your Bibles away, forget God, forget Church, go and live your life, and hope for the best. You simply cannot say that God sanctions anything He calls "sin" in the Bible. And while I am no fan of litmus tests for true faith, I will always say that a true, born-again Christian will always have a internal conflict with sin. Even when the sin nature prevails, a true Christian will hate the sin all the worse for it, and will certainly never argue that such sin is okay with God, or worse, God's will. Prevalent sin in a true Christian's life will drive them to repentance, begging God for grace and deliverance. Simply living with, or believing it is okay, represents a serious malady in one's spiritual life. Christians are in a war, and if you're not in the war, you're probably not a soldier.

So, yes, God WILL judge you. And if you have a sin in your life that you don't hate and wrestle with, but allow it to have control, then God's judgment will not be a good one (Ecclesiastes 12:14).

Just my opinion. My opinions are free and worth every penny.

12 Attributes of a Good Christian Pastor

Over the years of my Christian life, I’ve learned what I would expect from a pastor. I will share some of my observations with you. These 12 things represent my opinion on what I consider a well-rounded pastor.

NOTE: This assumes the pastors in question are well-grounded, evangelical Christians. Therefore, I say little about actual doctrine or theological alignments. For example, when I say "salvation", I am not specifying whether a pastor should teach an Arminian or Calvinistic view.

1. A well-rounded pastor will never discourage in-depth Bible study.

2. A well-rounded pastor emphasizes the need for in-depth Bible study. So even if he doesn’t discourage Bible-study, if he doesn’t mention the dire need to Biblical study among his congregation, it is a dereliction of duty on his part. I make this a separate line item because it has been my observation that most pastors are simply silent on the subject. The Bereans would be appalled (Acts 17:10-11)

3. Understand that the pastor’s job is not simply to preach the Gospel. While there may be occasions where their congregation NEEDS to hear the simple Gospel only (as was the case in 1^st Corinthians 2:2), a tuned-in pastor will know when this is the case. His job is to make disciples, not simply "believers" (Matthew 28:19), which involved more than the simple Gospel. This means preaching the Gospel of Salvation (Soteriology), the nature of Christ (Christology), the prophecies, end-times (Eschatology), the moral imperatives that accompany Christianity, and every other discipline contained with Christianity.

4. A well-rounded pastor will emphasize the need to get alone with God in one’s “prayer closet” (Matthew 6:6).

5. A well-rounded pastor will acknowledge the need for spiritual warfare, and not only acknowledge it, but also teach that it is the job of the whole congregation to engage in spiritual warfare, not just the “Spiritual Leaders”.

6. A well-rounded pastor is one who has mastered the Christian disciplines himself, and is a man of prayer and getting alone with God in worship (Spirit) and a man given to the Academic aspect of Christianity (Truth) (John 4:23).

7. A well-rounded pastor is not simply concerned with attendance numbers, but prefers quality above quantity in their congregation. A spirit-led pastor would prefer to only have five attendees if those five are in-touch with God, and genuinely hungry for His Spirit, than to have a house full of half-hearted “cultural” Christians.

8. As a tangent to number 7, a balanced pastor will not necessarily accommodate church growth, and will know when to accommodate and when not to. Being aware of God’s will in these matters is very important, as building bigger buildings is not the default position when a Church experiences growth. Remember Gideon’s Army (Judges 7:4-7). It is a constant temptation to accommodate rising attendance numbers, as, naturally, more butts in pews typically means more dollars in the offering plate. However, a spirit-filled pastor might find that he has to deny his herd instinct. It might be that a growing church is like a pond. It needs inlets and outlets of water in order to be able to support life. Without these inlets and outlets, the pond will eventually stagnate and die. So will a Church. When a Church experiences rapid growth, a balanced pastor will inquire of God what to do. It could be God wants the pastor to expand and absorb the rising number of attendees, or it might be that God wants the pastor to off-load some of its more mature disciples to smaller sister churches that might be struggling to find mature and qualified servants, ministers and leadership. Inlets and Outlets. As I said, finding God’s will in such cases is imperative, and there should never be a default position.

9. A good pastor will never discourage church attendance, but will make it a point to teach it in its proper context. Modern western services have centralized the “Church Service” within Christianity to the extent that it has become the only “essential” discipline within Christianity. A good pastor will teach that Church was not always a corporately owned building where people met a few times a week to worship and hear preaching. It was an actual community, where familial ties and bonds were created. Christians protected each other and kept each other up. If you want a decently accurate idea of what the early Church looked like, watch the recent movie “Paul: Apostle of Christ”.

10. This is quite possibly the most important one because it is such a common mistake, and nearly lethal to the spiritual maturation of the Christian. A good pastor will not side step or fail to teach eschatology in depth. The promised return of Christ to gather the Church and take her home to the wedding supper of the Lamb is ESSENTIAL. It is, in my opinion, 50% of the Gospel. In addition, a Gospel that neglects eschatology is wildly incomplete. Paul went so far as to call the promise of His coming the “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). I think the reason it is so neglected is that there’s so many theories on how eschatological events will unfold, or even if they’re going to unfold at all, that he is afraid it will create divisions within the congregation. Of course, it might, especially if the church rigidly holds to one theory as its own. Nevertheless, any clear thinking, level headed, spirit filled Christian who has studied eschatology knows that it is a nuanced and convoluted subject. Moreover, that it is impossible to know how, and especially when, eschatological events will manifest. The priority for a pastor is to make his congregation able to recognize these events should they begin happening in earnest.

11. A good pastor doesn’t urge his congregation to abstain from things such as politics or civic activities, like running for office, or coaching a rec-league ball team. In fact, regarding politics, a pastor will let his congregation know that geo-politics is the stage upon which echatology’s drama will unfold, and should be observed as close as possible without becoming a stumbling block to one’s spiritual health.

12. This one is something I have observed personally, but can find precious few pastors who fully embrace it. A pastor will endeavor to understand the personality type of every congregant, and not expect him or her to be something they are not. Being an introvert, this is something that has become a very real thing to me, as most pastors are extroverts, and demand extroversion from their congregants. Of course, they would not use the term “extroversion”, but would opt for a more pious sounding word like “boldness”. A pastor should understand that every personality type has strengths and weaknesses, and will learn what to expect from different personalities within their congregation. The reason I consider this as important is that not all personality types respond to the Gospel the same. For example, an introvert might be more receptive to the Gospel if his contact with the pastor was more one-on-one, and less involved with the "social" aspects of the modern church culture. Introverts, by their nature, cannot handle "groupthink" very well, and will need to feel like their conversion was truly inspired and individualized in nature, rather than joining a herd into a particular worldview. Pastors are shepherds, and should have a shepherd's heart. Sometimes shepherds have to deal with the entire herd, and sometimes they have to deal with individual sheep. Good shepherds know how and when to do either.

I write this realizing that not all pastoral ministries are alike, and there should be some pliability depending on the nature and location of the congregation. This is a very general rule that I would most rigidly apply to my own demographic of western Christianity. Whereas, a church in, say, China, or Saudi Arabia might need a more "boots-on-the-ground" approach.

A Rant

I am going to rant a little bit. This is a mashup of thoughts in my mind this morning that are largely incoherent. But if you see what I see, feel free to share.

This idiotic debate over why our teenagers feel the need to take guns to school rages on.

The problem is that everyone is looking for the one, single issue, that once resolved, will end the violence. Violent video games. Absentee fathers. The proliferation and availability of firearms. Social status. Economic status. Domestic situation.

I think the problem is actually a conglomerate of problems that have simmered for decades leading up to this. But I think the main one is that teenagers simply aren't nurtured the same way previous generations were.

For example, when I was young, this time of year, I might be helping Dad on Saturdays, getting ready for mowing season. During summer, Saturday's were spent mowing, which was an all day job because mowers weren't as big and fancy as they are now. During the fall, I spent Saturdays helping Dad fell trees for firewood, which involved cutting the tree up, busting the wood (with an ax, not a hydraulic log splitter), and stacking it. During the winter, Saturdays were spent getting enough of the firewood and kindling in the house for the following week.

Could it be that the technological advances that turned our kids into couch potatoes or thrill seekers on Saturdays have had a detrimental effect?

"But Scott, that has nothing to do with it. These kids are mentally disturbed by their social situation."

Baloney! If you went to high school with me, you know that I was socially inept (I still am, I am an INTJ). You know that I had a mediocre intelligence, and mediocre grades to reflect it. I hated high school and couldn't wait to get out. More than once, the stress of it produced what could have probably been diagnosed as mental illness (by our modern psychological evaluations, which I consider to be complete bovine excrement as well). Did I ever bring a firearm to school and shoot it up? Nope. Were firearms available? Absolutely!

See, after the Saturday work was over, Dad and I would sometimes go shooting. He taught me how to hold a firearm. How to load a firearm. How to chamber a round. How to discharge the firearm. And most importantly, how to respect a firearm. Pistols. Rifles. Shotguns. Even muzzle loaders. Heck, even bows and slingshots.

Something was present during my generation, and previous generations, that is inconspicuously absent from the upcoming generations. I think the thing that is absent is direction.

Kids need direction. Not just education, direction. I don't mean they should be told what to pursue in their lives. I mean they should be nurtured in such a way that they aren't just floating on the current like rudderless ships during their adult lives.

What about the Church?

Well, God doesn't change, so why has our society changed. Personally, I have found that the moral bearing, the direction that society seems to be going, is a good indicator of the efficacy and potency of the Church's presence within that society. I'm no proponent of trying to enforce Christian morality through the legal system, but since the Church has ceased becoming Gospel spreaders and disciple makers, and is instead become a conduit of God's provision and promises of comfort and security for our earthly lives, they have become lethargic and impotent. Think about the spiritual memes you might have seen on social media over the past week. I've seen lots and lots of memes regarding God's blessings and provision. Lots of images of landscapes and butterflies. Lots of prayer requests regarding sicknesses and providing comfort during calamity. And those things are okay. But I simply cannot recall a single meme that address the soteriological or disciplinary aspects of Christianity. Heck, I cannot recall a meme that addressed any theological aspect of Christianity. Just the typical "feel-good" memes. I have not seen a single meme where anyone has recognized their difficulties as God's teachings or discipline.

Everyone is the innocent victim, and needing God's deliverance and comfort, as if the preservation of our fragile emotional states was the most important thing. I want to read the Facebook status that says, "This hurts like crazy. But if the whip that is producing the pain is being held by the Savior, then please don't stop lashing me until what You desire in me is accomplished."

But this is really a spiritual post, so back on point... Children need more than a roof, food, iPhone, and a Playstation. They need direction. I think the reason they are doing what they are doing, from eating laundry detergent, to putting their arms on hot stoves, to cutting themselves, to this so-called "eraser challenge", to killing their classmates, is due to a lack of direction. This entails so much more than just the single issue we feel will end the problem once and for all. The reason they have seemingly went wild is a lack of direction, spiritually, morally, socially, and even politically.

And I don't mean to get too political, but even liberals have to recognize that the young generation seems  over-zealous and willing without reservation to sign on to any cradle-to-grave care the government has to offer them, without fear of repercussion. The whole idea that government may come knocking one day, expecting something in return (perhaps more than they will want to pay), seemingly has not occurred to them. The concept that the government can easily turn a society that is even only partially dependent on government provisions, making that society ripe for serfdom, is completely absent from their minds. In my mind, I can connect this to a lack of direction.

Anyway, rant over, lest I stray too far into politics.

Donald J. Trump, and Christians

I would like to start with a disclaimer. I am not a supporter of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I did not vote for either of the candidates in the 2016 election. It is public that I voted for the Constitution Party's candidate, Darrell Castle.

After the election, we see just how divided the nation is. The media, as relentless as it is, is doing its utmost to keep the division ripped wide open, by overemphasizing the various demographics that voted for each candidate, and even calling for states' electorates to disregard the vote and throw the electorate count back to Hillary.

Violent protests and riots rocked cities. College kids took to the streets.

But I am thinking about the state of Christianity in the nation.

Christians were concerned that a Clinton presidency would have a terrible impact on the Church's ability to worship and evangelize. That her presidency would have clamped down on our ability to share Christ outside the walls of our respective churches. The most thoughtful evaluations suggest that Clinton would not have done anything to impede corporate worship... the "Church Service"... but outside the Church, she would have demanded compliance to certain ideologies, even when they fly in the face of the most fundamental Christian principles.

These astute observers were most likely correct. In fact, in most cases, I think their prediction would have been a little too optimistic. Hillary Clinton has already hinted at the need for Christians to loosen their principles in order to accommodate government and social policies that are contrary to Christianity. Ideas she's hinted at in speeches would have come to fruition in her presidency, in my opinion. There is little doubt that Clinton would have been a disaster on religious liberty, especially for fundamentalist Christians who hold a rigid, biblical worldview. See this video.

But, it doesn't really matter. Donald Trump won the presidency.

What does the Church do?

Well, I will begin by saying that, as bad as Clinton is, the way the Church has embraced Donald Trump has been troubling at best. If what I see in my Facebook feed is to be taken at face value, their faith and trust in him flirts with having a serious messiah complex. While I think that Trump's presidency, from what I can tell at this VERY early stage, will result in basically lateral results, and maybe some improvement, in the preservation of our rights to be a genuine Christian in this nation. At the very least, we might be spared some of the hateful rhetoric accusing us of being "mysogynist" because we are pro-life, and believe the lives of those inside the womb are just as precious and sacred as lives lived outside the womb.

But I cannot shake the feeling that, for the overall health of the Church, a Clinton presidency might have been better for the Church.

Why?

Simple. For the reasons I stated above. She would have been an opposing force against Christianity.

Historically, from the time of Abraham clear through to the Present Day, it seems God's people are constantly looking for a place of rest and comfort. And when it seems like they are close to achieving this goal, God shakes them up.

Consider Joseph, leading his father Jacob and his brothers into the comforts of Egypt. The purpose was to wait out the remainder of the famine... a mere 7 years. But what happened? They got comfortable. Pharaoh allotted them a parcel of land, called Goshen, for them to make homes in, and they settled in. 400 years, there they sit. The promise of a land flowing with milk and honey, yet sitting on their haunches in the first place they were able to achieve any level of comfort and security.

God knew this wouldn't do. So he sent a Pharaoh that "knew not Joseph" (Exodus 1:8). He essentially enslaved them, and kept them oppressed. He soured the milk of their comfort and security. So when the time came, there was no debate or dissent. They were ready to put Egypt in their rearview mirrors.

This pattern is repeated all throughout history. From Israel under King Saul, to the Babylonian Captivity, King Herod, to the Roman Occupation, to the siege of Jerusalem. Evangelicals can even add the Protestant Reformation and the Great Awakening, and all the great revivals to their list. All these oppressive times in history accomplished the same thing. A re-alignment of God's people back to where they should be.

It is easy, at least it is for me, to see the corruption in our western church. So much is neglected. Most churches neglect the greatest majority of the biblical precepts. The Church is in a rut. They are locked into a status quo. They have exchanged the genuine glory of God for seeking "feelings". They neglect prophecy and the deeper minutia of theological understanding, in exchange for seeking His "presence". Of course, Christians ought to seek His presence. But I have found out that by "His presence", what most Christians mean is the manufacture of a certain feeling or visceral experience they have come to associate with God's presence. Modern Christianity has, in fact, inherited many of the same attributes as some New Age disciplines, but I will save that for later.

So, what do I think will happen? The Church will remain locked into this status quo. They will continue their lethargic presence in this nation, without any real forward momentum into a deeper, more profound, knowledge of Jesus Christ. As long as Christianity neglects real spiritual warfare, and continually seeks to embrace Hedonism rather than the Asceticism prescribed in Scripture (Matthew 16:24-25), it will remain a pointless entity in western culture.

But if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, maybe things would have been different. The Church would have met genuine resistance. Yes, a Clinton presidency might have culminated into something similar to what China has, a state-sanctioned doctrine that is a dilution of genuine Christianity. True, Christianity might have been driven underground, the way it is in China and Saudi Arabia, where Christians are forced to meet in secret and hold baptisms under the cover of darkness for fear of their lives.

But the Church, just like the Hebrews in Goshen, would have grown spiritually. In Goshen, Pharaoh tried to kill the baby boys. But the Hebrews were literally having them quicker than they could be destroyed (Exodus 1:19). Imagine if Christianity was being oppressed, and we found ourselves in the same scenario... People born again into the Kingdom quicker than the government could respond to the growing influence.

Clinton would have been like Pharaoh. Relentlessly abusive, but ultimately used for God's purposes to bring the Church back into proper alignment. But the Church wanted Trump. Demanded Trump, in some cases.

So if I am right, and that, for the spiritual health of the Church, Clinton and her anti-Christian policies would have been more beneficial, why did God allow Trump to be elected? First, let me reiterate my disclaimer that I did not vote for Hillary Clinton, nor would have I advised any Christian to do so.

But, as has been stated, ad nauseum, on social media... God is in control.

I prayed about this. God led me to 1st Samuel 8. This messiah complex that Christians hold for Donald Trump may very well be the same scenario. We rejected the evil, even though it would have culminated into a spiritually armed and strengthened Church, in favor of our own personal King Saul.

We demanded Trump, the way Israel demanded a King. And even for the same reason. Israel saw corruption in God's way (the corruption of Samuel's sons - 1st Samuel 8:3-5) the way we saw corruption in Hillary Clinton.

And if I heard from God correctly, Trump is God's anointed for this time, just like King Saul, who basically enslaved HIS OWN people (1st Samuel 8:11-18).

I think God intends to show me more on this as Trump's inauguration nears. But I wanted to share what I believe is God's message to me, and hopefully you. The "take-away", as it were.

It's one thing to, with God's help, emancipate yourself from a foreign ruler, the way Israel did to Pharaoh in the Exodus, when it is within the constraints of God ultimate design. It is quite another matter to emancipate yourself from the slave-master you pick for yourself, based on fears of losing freedom, comfort, or security.

The Lost Political Ideologies

First off, let me begin by saying that, as a Christian, I recognize every Christian believes their faith aligns with their political beliefs. That is a given, and isn't likely to ever change. And, I will begin by saying that Christ never actually defined a Christian political program. But there were points in His ministry where he encountered governmental policy.

Secondly, I am writing this because so many, especially Republicans, have lost sight as to what the ideologies actually mean.

I will start with liberal political ideology. Liberals generally believe, as society evolves, the role of government should expand to accommodate this role. The problem with this in American society is that we have a Constitutional Republic whose government should be operating within the narrow constraints of the Constitution. Since constant expansion of government requires operation outside these constraints, Liberals tend to embrace a fluid Constitutional interpretation method called "Loose Constructionism" or "Living Constitution".

According to Wikipedia, Loose Constructionism is... "the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases." That is the summary of liberal ideology. Times change, and the role government plays in our lives should change, and expand, with it. This is why liberal ideology is often referred to as "progressive" ideology.

Expansion of government, just like the expansion of anything, requires additional resources. It is for this reason that liberals generally push for higher taxes upon its. In fact, the entire economic system of liberals proposes a complete government regulated economy, eventually trending toward Socialism, the economic model embraced by Communism. The closer a society gets to Socialism, the closer that society will be to putting an end to any free-market Capitalistic enterprise, as well as any private property rights. Everything essentially becomes property of the State, and the citizens are basically wards of the State. This is why Liberalism is called a Collective ideology, as it basically nullifies the whole idea of an individual having sovereign rights to their own personhood.

In America, liberal ideology is most commonly represented by the Democratic Party, and more extreme cases are represented by various third parties, like the Green Party or the Communist Party.

Conservative ideology isn't necessarily the polar opposite of liberal ideology. Conservatives believe in the diminished role of government, preferably to its Constitutional restraints as it was originally written and interpreted it by those who framed it centuries ago. Any expansion of government can be accomplished through Constitutional Amendment, and even that is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. The passage of a Constitutional Amendment is difficult, facilitating its precise understanding before passage. It is for this reason that Conservatives are often regarded as "Traditionalists", contrary to the Liberal title of "Progressives".

In general, Conservatives embrace Capitalism, and allowing the natural mechanisms of a free-market, to run unimpeded by government intervention. While Liberals claim such a system creates massive income inequality and potential class abuse, Conservatives claim that Capitalism drives innovation, controls market prices, and improves the overall living conditions within any given society wherein it is allowed to work. Conservatives generally allow some regulation of the free-market, to discourage both monopolies and injustices perpetrated upon the working class.

In America's past, the Republican Party used to represent Conservatism. But over the last four to five decades, this has changed profoundly. Traditionally, Democrats embrace the expansion of government, while Republicans embrace Conservative idea of reducing the size of government. Today, government expands under both Democratic and Republican government control. The only measurable difference being, with Republicans, it grows slightly slower.

Conservatism is more nuanced than Liberalism. With Liberalism, it is far simpler to understand because they will always be for more government control, more government regulation, and more government dependency. With Conservatism, there is always the question, if government is too big, how much fat can we trim before it starts affecting society in a negative way?

Take, for example, Social Security. The Social Security Program was part of Lyndon B. Johnson's, a liberal Democrat, "New Deal" programs, which expanded government exponentially. From a "original intent" Constitutional Interpretation, the whole idea of government taking a portion of your wages (without your express consent) and holding the funds (actually using them to fund other government expansions) until you are retirement age, isn't a enumerated power given to the Federal Government by the Constitution. But today, nearly a century later, the mere mention of ending the Social Security programs will be met promptly with howls of anger. Too many people are now reliant upon the government program to ever allow its demise.

That is the Conservative dilemma. Once an expansive government program has been installed, and a portion of the citizenry has become dependent on it, you cannot repeal it without appearing the "bad guy". It doesn't matter if it passes Constitutional muster from a "original intent" standpoint.

So, how does a Conservative reduce government without getting dirty? This is why Republicans have had such a hard time clearly defining a limited-government platform for the last three or four decades.

Libertarians are a different sort. They are usually either anarchist or minarchist. No government, or extreme minimal government. For Libertarians, the choice is clear. The individual takes precedence above the collective. If government is to exist, it isn't to interfere with individuals at all, but to protect individual rights. That is different than protecting individuals. If government properly protects the rights of an individual, the individual can protect themselves. This is why Libertarians are so fond of the Bill of Rights. While most Libertarians disagree on the potency and efficacy of having a Constitution to constrain government, almost all of them see the Bill of Rights as a list of something that should be protected. The Bill of Rights, the right to life, free speech, to bear arms, to private property, to practice, or abstain from practicing, any religion, etc, is natural, paramount, given to us by our Creator, and inalienable. Government, if it exists at all, should only exist to protect these rights. Often Libertarians cite the oath taken by Federally elected officials. They swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Notice, their oath isn't to protect and defend the people, but the Constitution. The Constitution is an ideal.

Of course, most presidents go beyond their oath within a few days of taking it.

Economically, Libertarians embrace Laissez-faire. According to Wikipedia, Laissez-Faire is "an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies." In other words, a genuinely free-market, where one individual can enter into a contract with another individual without interference.

Libertarians regard taxation as theft, since it is our money taken without our express consent. They also are against the passage of victimless crimes. Libertarians call this the "Non-Agression Axiom". If an activity does not produce a victim, it shouldn't be prohibited. This is why Libertarians are sometimes seen a being proponents of the legalization of recreational drugs and even prostitution. And once our western mindset can get beyond the cognitive-dissonance of legalizing these things, it becomes easy to see why they should be legal. Sex between two consenting adult individuals isn't illegal, why should sex between two consenting adult individuals for money be illegal? Alcohol isn't illegal, why should the use of any recreational drug be illegal?

Libertarians also believe that any government control is a step toward Authoritarianism, more commonly called Statism. The opposite being, of course, Anarchy. Don't let the westernized images of Anarchy you see on television throw you off. Anarchy of the Libertarian type was best summed up by the famous author of "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings", J. R. R. Tolkien, who said, "My political opinions lean more and more toward Anarchy... the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."

I would suggest other works for further study. For Conservatism, my first recommendation is Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative. For Libertarianism, my first recommendation is Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty.

The Forgotten Man

Excerpted from William Graham Sumner's "Forgotten Man", written in 1883 for Harper's Weekly. It eloquently presents the ideas and philosophies that have been completely abandoned by America's modern politicians, but were valued above all things in the 19th century...

"I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator, and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him....

In the definition the word “people” was used for a class or section of the population. It is now asserted that if that section rules, there can be no paternal, that is, undue, government. That doctrine, however, is the very opposite of liberty and contains the most vicious error possible in politics. The truth is that cupidity, selfishness, envy, malice, lust, vindictiveness, are constant vices of human nature. They are not confined to classes or to nations or particular ages of the world. They present themselves in the palace, in the parliament, in the academy, in the church, in the workshop, and in the hovel. They appear in autocracies, theocracies, aristocracies, democracies, and ochlocracies all alike. They change their masks somewhat from age to age and from one form of society to another. All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow-men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others. It is true that, until this time, the proletariat, the mass of mankind, have rarely had the power and they have not made such a record as kings and nobles and priests have made of the abuses they would perpetrate against their fellow-men when they could and dared. But what folly it is to think that vice and passion are limited by classes, that liberty consists only in taking power away from nobles and priests and giving it to artisans and peasants and that these latter will never abuse it! They will abuse it just as all others have done unless they are put under checks and guarantees, and there can be no civil liberty anywhere unless rights are guaranteed against all abuses, as well from proletarians as from generals, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics....

It is plain enough that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the very life and substance of society. They are the ones who ought to be first and always remembered. They are always forgotten by sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every description of speculator in sociology, political economy, or political science. If a student of any of these sciences ever comes to understand the position of the Forgotten Man and to appreciate his true value, you will find such student an uncompromising advocate of the strictest scientific thinking on all social topics, and a cold and hard-hearted skeptic towards all artificial schemes of social amelioration. If it is desired to bring about social improvements, bring us a scheme for relieving the Forgotten Man of some of his burdens. He is our productive force which we are wasting. Let us stop wasting his force. Then we shall have a clean and simple gain for the whole society. The Forgotten Man is weighted down with the cost and burden of the schemes for making everybody happy, with the cost of public beneficence, with the support of all the loafers, with the loss of all the economic quackery, with the cost of all the jobs. Let us remember him a little while. Let us take some of the burdens off him. Let us turn our pity on him instead of on the good-for-nothing. It will be only justice to him, and society will greatly gain by it. Why should we not also have the satisfaction of thinking and caring for a little while about the clean, honest, industrious, independent, self-supporting men and women who have not inherited much to make life luxurious for them, but who are doing what they can to get on in the world without begging from anybody, especially since all they want is to be let alone, with good friendship and honest respect. Certainly the philanthropists and sentimentalists have kept our attention for a long time on the nasty, shiftless, criminal, whining, crawling, and good-for-nothing people, as if they alone deserved our attention....

What the Forgotten Man really wants is true liberty. Most of his wrongs and woes come from the fact that there are yet mixed together in our institutions the old mediaeval theories of protection and personal dependence and the modern theories of independence and individual liberty. The consequence is that the people who are clever enough to get into positions of control, measure their own rights by the paternal theory and their own duties by the theory of independent liberty. It follows that the Forgotten Man, who is hard at work at home, has to pay both ways. His rights are measured by the theory of liberty, that is, he has only such as he can conquer. His duties are measured by the paternal theory, that is, he must discharge all which are laid upon him, as is always the fortune of parents. People talk about the paternal theory of government as if it were a very simple thing. Analyze it, however, and you see that in every paternal relation there must be two parties, a parent and a child, and when you speak metaphorically, it makes all the difference in the world who is parent and who is child. Now, since we, the people, are the state, whenever there is any work to be done or expense to be paid, and since the petted classes and the criminals and the jobbers cost and do not pay, it is they who are in the position of the child, and it is the Forgotten Man who is the parent. What the Forgotten Man needs, therefore, is that we come to a clearer understanding of liberty and to a more complete realization of it. Every step which we win in liberty will set the Forgotten Man free from some of his burdens and allow him to use his powers for himself and for the commonwealth."

Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide: My Thoughts.

The White House, illuminated with multiple colored lights, celebrated
the Supreme Court's ruling.

Last Friday (06/26/2015), the Supreme Court of the United States rendered the most controversial ruling in all of American History. By a 5-to-4 majority, it ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and with one sweeping motion, state-sanction of same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide.

And it ignited a firestorm on social media, whose embers were still glowing over the recent Confederate Battle Flag controversy.

I have always wondered how the Churches (to clarify, the Evangelical Churches, not the Liturgical Churches, whose reaction is constrained to the reaction of their respective pontiffs) would react to such a sweeping action of government. And for pure entertainment, similar to the entertainment of watching a drunk man attempting to juggle goslings, they haven't disappointed. But, in every other way imaginable, I couldn't be more disappointed.

Of course, there are the hyper-fundamentalists, firing Bible verses and citing God's holy law as given to and enforced by the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament. Being a fundamentalist myself, I can see their error with 20-20 vision. They simply believe that God's moral codes should be integrated and enforced as national or state laws. And, as is typical, they love to pick their "pet" sins when doing so, forgetting all the other "abominations", like heterosexual activity outside the bond of marriage, adultery, drunkeness, covetousness, etc, etc, ad nauseum (1st Corinthians 6:9-10 & Galatians 5:19-21), all of which are perfectly legal, and as disgusting in the eyes of God as homosexual behavior. Some are even claiming this will be the final straw that brings God's judgment.

On the flipside, you have "tolerant" Christians who suggest that you cannot love the sinner UNLESS you tolerate the sin. And by not doing so, you presumably become a bigot or a hypocrite, since no one is perfect, and we all have sin in our lives.

And we have all the non-Christians, doing their best to cite Scriptures and present theological and philosophical views supporting same-sex marriage. Many of which are asinine to the point of hilarious. But as any seasoned Christian knows, the Scripture wasn't written for non-Christians, making their interpretation suspect. Until one has the Spirit of Christ indwelling them, they will never be able to "rightly divide" God's Word. So the only message a non-Christian can hear and understand is the raw Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is pointless to debate Christian theology with a non-Christian. Jesus even went as far as comparing such fruitless efforts to giving precious jewels to pigs and dogs (Matthew 7:6).

Being a libertarian and a Christian gives me a multi-dimensional, stereographic view of the issue that few Christians (and almost no non-Christians) are able to comprehend.

First of all, let me start by saying that the ruling given by SCOTUS, as it stands, does NOT make it legally compulsory for any Church, or any minister, to accommodate requests for same-sex weddings.

That may change. In all honesty, I fully expect it to. It has already happened. (LINK) It has always seemed to me that with the militant homosexual agenda, enough is never enough.

From the start, I find that I am amazed at the level of misunderstanding. Same-Sex Marriage has never been the issue. Here in Tennessee, where it wasn't "legal" before this ruling, homosexuals were still exchanging vows, exchanging rings, pledging eternal fidelity, the whole song and dance. Only their marriages were simply not recognized by the State.

The issue is STATE-SANCTIONED Same-Sex Marriage. Now, for years, I have been telling the Church that what should happen BEFORE Same-Sex Marriage gains universal acceptance, is for the Churches to tell Christians to withdraw from seeking State licenses for their marriage. I have blogged about my views on this already, and you can read them here and here. The Church allowed the institution of marriage to be taken over by the Government, in exchange for 501(c)(3), and they complain when our Babylonian Governmental System doesn't treat it with the respect and reverence it deserves. God is not mocked. The Church is reaping what it has sown by allowing the State to usurp our marriages. If you throw your child in a den of hungry lions, don't complain when they devour your child. Strictly speaking, what happened Friday is the Church's fault. Is it any wonder judgment is destined to begin at the "House of God"?

The State doesn't actually see marriage as a holy covenant between two individuals, where two become one. the way a Christian would. To them, it is, at best, a social convention they can exploit to their own purposes, and at worst, a simple contract between two consenting individuals. That is why I'd be concerned if they'd ruled the other way. It would have been precedent for them to over-regulate contract law. Being a libertarian, I am always suspicious of laws that hold potential precedent for government to regulate aspects of our lives that should be free of government intrusion, like our ability to enter into private contracts with other individuals and, for that matter, our marriages.

But, my advice went unheard and/or unheeded. And now, the Churches are faced with the prospect of the Gay Agenda poised to expand to the point of becoming intrusive into our religious institutions.

Some Churches are incorporating, adopting by-laws and policies they believe will exempt them when this comes knocking on their door. As a perpetual student of the Civil War, I have learned that any attempt to claim immunity over Federal laws is a one way ticket to the modern equivalent of William Tecumseh Sherman performing a no-knock invasion in your home. Government could care-less for your "by-laws" when they are not in keeping with their principles.

Others have, rather presumptuously, stated that they'd walk away from their ministry and padlock the church doors before performing a same-sex wedding.

But my prescription stands. Let's take our marriages OUT of the hands of the State. When Jim and Fred knock on our Church doors asking for marriage, look at how much trouble it would save if the deacons and elders told them, "We don't perform any state licensed weddings. Only baptized members of our church may marry here."

The irony is, some States already seem to be taking my advice. Funny how that works. The State has always been smarter than, and one step ahead of, the Church, in both the making of good and bad laws. Alabama and Mississippi have both voted to stop marriage licensing in their State altogether. Interesting... Now why didn't the Church think of that?! Cognitive dissonance to the prospect of doing it differently than it has always been done, I suppose.

Now, since I know my prescription will once again fall upon the ears of the auditory impaired and the cognitively dysfunctional, I humbly suggest to Christians is simply a sign of the times. Scripture says, "In your patience, possess your souls" (Luke 21:19). We should be patient and in prayer about this. And certainly not let it distract us from our primary mandate of making disciples.

I don't know if this signals the end for America, a blatant herald of the Lord's return. I'd be more inclined to believe that the Church, at large, embracing homosexual lifestyles as consistent with God's moral code would be better evidence of our Prince's return, or a herald of impending judgment, Certainly more than any action of the State. Governments are inherently evil. Evil entities doing evil things are hardly signals of Christ's return. But when the Bride Herself starts showing signs of infidelity to Her coming King, that is another matter.

That is why almost all my focus over the next few weeks will be on the Church's further reactions to this. I am not as concerned with the State at this point. I know what to expect from them. But this is a prime opportunity for the Church to hit their knees and get clear, precise directions from God on how to handle this situation. Where sin abounds, grace abounds (Romans 5:20). But grace isn't grace when it is shoved down sinners' throats via State prohibitive legislation.

And keep praying, "Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!" (The Revelation 22:20)

Christianity and Judgment

The ongoing war that is occurring right now between believing, fundamental, Christians and the unbelieving world is an interesting cultural nuance. It reflects the changing social paradigm within the country from Christian to post-Christian. And while the nuances are almost too numerous to mention, it does bring up an interesting concept that I think the Church ought to take into consideration.

Where is the fuzzy, fine line between being non-judgmental, and calling sin out. Let me give you an example.

Now we all know that when a Christian says we shouldn't judge, they mean one thing entirely. And that is because we are all sinners, with no right to judge. First, we need to understand the usage and meaning of the word "judge" in its Scriptural usage.

The Greek word used in the New Testament is κρίνω, which transliterates into krinō. The definition everyone seems concerned with is the definition that defines "judge" as "to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong". Christians understand that judging is wrong in the sense of declaring moral superiority. The relevant Scriptures are Matthew 7:1, Luke 6:37, John 7:24, and 1st Corinthians 4:3. The John reference brings clarity to the command. After telling them to refrain from judging, he then urges them to "righteous judgment", or "right judgement", according to the ESV translation. What is that? It is the ability... seemingly extinct ability... to call out sin while under the full knowledge and realization that everyone is under judgment. As a side, this is an area where it would pay for any Christian to invest serious study time in, in order to get in its proper scope.

But when a prominent, cultural, non-Christian, personality stands up and presumes to remind Christians about our mandate to abstain from judgment, what they mean is tolerance and acceptance. In other words, to allow cultural and social paradigms supercede Biblical definitions and mandates. And that abstaining from judgment entails the cultural acceptance of the sin. In other words, anything less than absolute silence on the sin issue is "unloving" and "judgmental".

How does the Church continue to spread the knowledge that God hates sin, while at the same time not being perceived as "judgmental" by the post-Christian culture we find ourselves in? I know all about the "hate the sin, love the sinner" maxim. But anyone who has had dealings with people knows that the unregenerate world does not make that distinction. All too often, people come to allow their sin to become the defining aspect of their lives. We Christians know this is due to the consuming nature of sin. But non-Christians would hardly call it sin at all. They just see it as part of themselves. An extension, if you will. So if you say, "Hey man, I love you, but your drug habit is bad news.", they will likely grow very defensive, as they don't see it as wrong at all. And if you love them, you have to love and appreciate their sin as well, for it is a part of them, from their point of view.

For example, let's take western Christianity's favorite "pet" sin, homosexual behavior.

This is especially true of homosexuality. One thing about homosexuality is that being homosexual becomes the defining attribute of their whole life. And if you attempt to befriend a homosexual (most I know are quite friendly, in fact), you will soon find that refusing to sanction their lifestyle is no less than a slap in their face, in their opinion. And, guess what. If you don't sanction their sin, you're being "judgmental" and they react as if you already tied them to the burning post.

So, how is this accomplished? How do you refuse to sanction the sin, while not appearing judgmental? And while I am 100% against the idea of incorporating biblical prohibitions against sin into law, it is the Church's responsibility to define what is and isn't sin to the world. It is through the preacher's pulpit, not the congressman's podium, that the world will be changed. The first step in evangelism is to make one aware of their need to be reconciled with God, and that cannot happen until they come to realize their own sinful state. The Church must identify and define what is sin in order for this to happen. When the Church stops doing that, they might as well close up shop and go home.

Here is my prediction as to how this will go. And most of you will be able to see the beginnings of this happening already. The Church will split, yet again. Only this time, the split will be along moral codes, and be most emphatic. On one hand, you will have a Church that is politically correct, that refuses to teach or preach against sin. On the other hand, you will have a Church that maintains some sense of moral integrity. It will not be long before the State steps in, and denounces Christian Fundamentalism and being incongruous with the principles of the nation. It will actually be the Fundamentalists that exacerbate the problem by continuing their asinine quest to infiltrate government with Christian ideals. The ignorance of Fundamentalists has always been their downfall.

The ultimate end will be a Church similar to that in China. Where the true Church is driven underground, meeting in basements and caves, and holding baptism under cover of darkness. There will be a visible Christian Church, one who has compromised principles by agreeing not to teach or preach anything against the State, in exchange for the State's sanction and permission to be allowed to exist.

In fact, this is already happening in the United States, in a de-facto sense. 501(c)(3) status comes with strings. Technically, to be 501(c)(3), the Church has implicitly agreed to not be critical of the State. But let me be perfectly clear when I say this. Most pastors and deacons (or elders) are too ignorant to recognize this. And to suggest that not all is as it seems will only create cognitive dissonance. 

And, as the State becomes increasingly tolerant of aberrant behavior, railing on sin will soon be perceived no differently than railing on the State itself.

It is my opinion that the Church will soon be constrained to make a decision. They can choose to compromise on their beliefs in order to maintain the status quo of meeting in their steepled building and singing their hymns and doing it like they've always done, absent the moral and ethical integrity and preaching against sin that is essential in the propagation of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. Or, they will shut the doors of their Churches, break into smaller groups, and starting meeting for corporate worship in homes. It happened in Nazi Germany, with the State-Sanctioned Reichskirche who agreed to not say anything against Hitler or the Nazi Regime, and the Confessing Church that Bonhoeffer was part of. It is happening in China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as we speak. It will soon be happening in the UK, as they are actually ahead of us in their slide toward political correctness. And eventually, it will be here. We will have to choose. Babylon, or the Kingdom of God? 

The sooner we get out of Babylon (the world with its systems and mechanisms... Revelation 18, Matthew 24:21), the better the Church will fare.

You Don't Want to Live in a Libertarian World?

by Greg Samples

You say you’re happy you don’t live in a libertarian world?  You prefer the world you have now?

The world that has seen the death of over 50 million people in the last century at the hands of their own government.

Oh, you just prefer your own government now, not the whole world?

The government that has stolen the wealth of the common man and transferred it to the 1% via a fraudulent, fiat currency?

The government that has sent troops, money, equipment and other support to aid foreign nations in wars and covert actions without lawful congressional approval, engaging in non defensive military action in over 130 countries, often as mercenaries, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent humans in those countries.

The government that has imposed a harsh, progressive income tax on the sweat of the middle class, causing families to work longer and with incomes from both parents just to make ends meet, and depriving children of parental supervision at the most critical times of their lives.
  
The government that has passed bills in conflict with the constitution, and they laugh at anyone bringing this to their attention.

The government that has meddled in the internal affairs of foreign nations, causing their citizens to direct their hostility towards the U.S.

The government that has emitted unconstitutional bills of credit through the Federal Reserve System, incurring debts for the payment of unconstitutional activities or expenditures.

The government that has allowed the erosion of individual sovereignty by claiming powers for the Federal Government not authorized by the Constitution, and strictly prohibited by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The government that has invaded the privacy of non-criminal Americans by obtaining and storing information about them in violation of the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments.

The government that has confiscated private property for non-public purposes, in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

The government that has impaired justice by misinformation and incorrect instructions to juries. Judges have presided over cases when there was a conflict of interest. They have defied the 6th and 7th Amendments.

The government that has prosecuted Americans for activities which have no victims. Prosecutions include activities involving drugs, sex, medical assistance, taxation and currencies. More than half the prison population in America is incarcerated for non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior.

The government that has prohibited the free choice of medical treatment.

The government that has allowed the torture of POWs and criminal suspects.

The government that has protected the infliction of violence on their own citizens such as the transgressions at Ruby Ridge.

The government that has enacted forfeiture laws which take private property without due process of law, in violation of the 5th Amendment.

The government that has assessed heavy fines for minor offenses, in violation of the 8th Amendment.

This is what you are asking for with a non-libertarian government.

Why?

Easter Devotional

I wanted to write a devotional about the origins of "Easter". It would seem most Christians have taken precious little time to research how the day we celebrate Christ's resurrection, the most pivotal aspect of Christ's work on Earth, came to be, and how it became known by the name "Easter". This devotional can serve as a jump-off point for your own invaluable research on the subject. This is Kindergarten level stuff, the hors d'oeuvre before the entree, and I am sure your own study will take you into much deeper waters. So you will need to do the remainder of the homework yourself. But, being the good Christian you are, I am sure that is not an issue. Right?

The Roman Catholic Church was very adamant about “Christianizing” the various pagan cultures surrounding Rome. One of their means of doing this was observe and learn their culture and spiritual traditions. Once there, they would contrive a means of amalgamating their various pagan observances with some aspect of Christianity as to assist with the understanding of the Christian principle. This is the case with Christmas as well as Easter. All the extraneous, non-religious, aspects of Christmas are crossed over from the pagan aspects, mostly surrounding the beliefs of Father Christmas, Father Time, or who those familiar with mythology will identify as “Kronos”. This is why Christmas was located around December 25, very close proximity to the Winter Solstice. All the extraneous Christmas observances, like Christmas trees, decorations, and gift giving, are derivatives of the pagan aspects of the holiday.

Easter, on the other hand, has an even more curious origin than Christmas. The pagan cultures they were amalgamating with celebrated the Spring Equinox. As it were, this is when the Jews typically celebrated their Passover, which as we know, was when Christ was crucified and resurrected.

Ēostre, with the icons of Easter.

The unfortunate aspect is that, in the amalgamation of a pagan feast with a Christian observance, the name of the pagan deity which symbolized the pagan observance was retained. Her name was Ēostre, which is the transliterated name of the Germanic pagan goddess, whose symbols pervade our Easter observances. The word “Easter” is a variation of the same name. This goddess was, among other things, a fertility goddess, who utilized symbols such as rabbits, eggs, fresh green grass, birds, budding trees, and lilies. Other variations of the name include Austron and Ostara. Ostara is the name recognized by various New Age disciplines, and you will find this pagan goddess of extreme importance with those who practice naturalistic forms of witchcraft, like Wicca.

A most disturbing association of "Easter" is that this goddess is also regarded by some as the same goddess known in Akkadian, Babylonian, and Sumerian mythologies as "Ishtar". Believe me when I say that Ishtar was bad news. She was a goddess of war, sex, and all things nocturnal. She demanded human blood sacrifice, and some of the most well-known, and most effective, means of human torture were devised by her followers. Being a goddess of night, she was sometimes associated with a Gnostic and Kabbalistic deity of Jewish folklore known as Lilith, who manifests herself as an  owl ( a nocturnal creature ), who, according to legend, attempted to seduce Adam before Eve's creation. Another legend has her as Adam’s companion before Eve was created, but refused to yield to Adam as her husband. She is mentioned once in the Old Testament in  Isaiah 34:14, which is translated as "screech owl" in the King James Version. Lilith is keyed to Strong's H3917.

Both Lilith and Ishtar, being the same goddess, has her roots traced all the way back to the pseudopigraphical book of Enoch, when the Watchers descended upon Mt. Hermon to have sex with, and bear children with, human women, an act that is also recorded in Genesis 6:1-4. In the King James Version, the Watchers were called "bene ha Elohim" (H1121 and H430) and is translated as "sons of God". These fallen angels manifested themselves as "gods", and theological scholars refer to this pantheon as "The Divine Council". You can do further study at The Divine Council. The progeny of these gods and human women, were giants, and are actually called "Nephilim" (H5303) and were considered to be the "fallen ones". These watchers are actually the fallen angels, and who Evangelical Christians commonly believe are demons. This unholy union between the Heavenly and the Earthly was Satan's attempt to corrupt the seed of men, from whom Christ was destined to appear. The genetic imperfection, though preserved in Christ's lineage, somehow passed through the flood, mostly likely through Ham or his wife, and created the antediluvian giants that are more common in Scripture, like Goliath, or Og of Bashan. Some legends even equate Nimrod with Gilgamesh of Sumerian Mythology, who had both celestial and terrestrial parents, who built whole cities, including the city of Uruk, in honor of Ishtar. Nimrod was a Gibborim, according to Scripture, which is keyed to Strong’s H1368, and is translated as “mighty one” in the King James Version. Other ancient cultures regarded Gibborim as a subset of the Nephilim, and believed Nimrod to be just that, a giant offspring of a fallen angel and human female. Some mythologies, like Greek Mythology, regard this offspring as “demi-gods”.

In Enoch, upon descending upon Mt. Hermon, Ishtar’s original name was Azazel. And she was actually a he. HE became transgendered as to better accommodate being a deity that represented sex. She taught women the art of seduction, including the use of make-up and the embroidering of hair. She also taught mankind metallurgy, or how to manipulate metals, which is required to manufacture the machinations of warfare, like swords and shields. She (or he) was, after all, a goddess of war.

"And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures."

(1 Enoch 8:1-2)

That is the background of the name “Easter” and who ancient history regards her to be. Regarding the inclusion of "Easter" in the King James Version, it is as follows.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, as opposed to the Old Testament being written in Hebrew. All English versions, including the King James Version, are translations from either the original languages, as they have been preserved, and from previous English translations and other translations, to reflect the changes in languages as they mature.

For example, two indispensable resources the King James translators used were St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation, as well as previous English translations, such as the Bishop’s Bible and the Great Bible. The King James Version itself was translated in 1611 with some minor revisions in the 18^th century. The most noticeable of these revisions was the complete removal of the Apocrypha, the books that was between the Testaments that liturgical denominations still use.

In the New Testament, there is the Greek word "Pascha". You may have even heard Jews refer to the "Paschal Feast" or the "Paschal Sacrifice". This word appears 29 times in the King James Version of the Bible. In 28 of those occurrences, “Pascha” is translated correctly as "Passover". This word is keyed to Strong's G3957. Those occurrences are as follows.

Matthew 26:2, 26:17, 26:18, 26:19, Mark 14:1, 14:12, 14:14, 14:16, Luke 2:41, 22:1, 22:7, 22:8, 22:11, 22:13, John 2:13, 2:23, 6:4, 11:55, 12:1, 18:28, 18:39, 19:14, 1st Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:28

However, in Acts 12:4, the King James translators wrongly translated the word "Pascha" as "Easter". It should be noted that most of the newer English translations have corrected Acts 12:4 to say “Passover” instead of “Easter”.

The most troubling aspect in all this is that the Jewish feast of Passover is the feast that has direct correlation to Christ's atonement on the cross. Striking the blood on the doorposts is a corollary to being "washed in the blood of the lamb" or "applying the blood to your own heart". Eating the lamb, including the organs and entrails (purtenance), correlates to Christ's command to eat of His own flesh (John 6:51). It is quite sad and troubling that the Church has allowed the inertia of time and tradition to justify calling the day of our Lord’s resurrection by the name of a pagan goddess. Even Churches that do not condone the pagan symbols, like eggs, baskets, and rabbits, still insist on calling this day "Easter", probably never realizing they are using the name of a Pagan goddess, just because it is falsely translated as such in the King James Version of the Bible. It probably is hateful in the ears of our Lord to see His Passover commemorated with the name of another god.  In my opinion, we should abandon the name “Easter” altogether, and start calling this day, “Resurrection Day”, “Atonement Day”, “Reconciliation Day”, or “Salvation Day”.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - My Review

WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS

Bilbo's journey continues in Peter Jackson's second installment of the new "Hobbit" movies, "The Desolation of Smaug".

Interestingly, devout fans of Tolkien will relish the fact that most of Jackson's "embellishments" are still in line with the main story. With the inclusion of the "Pale Orc" in the the first movie, along with this new elvish character, Tauriel (meaning "Daughter of the Forest"), in this movie, although she isn't in the book, I was apprehensive at first.

Jackson's inclusions are not invasive to the central story has told in the book... At least not like the atrocious changes to the Narnia stories in their subsequent movie adaptions. Although Disney's and Fox's changes to those stories are blasphemous and perverse caricatures of the original, Tauriel was not an unwelcome addition. We assume, in the book, that more elves than was actually named were present in the scene with the wood elves. All Jackson did was name one, create a three-way love story between her, our beloved Legolas, and Kili the Dwarf, the dwarf that already had female Tolkienians swooning where they stood. Nothing like a love triangle to up the ante.

See, not invasive at all? But if that off tangent plotline in the periphery of what hard-core Tolkienians regard as "central" did offend you, his inclusion and depiction of "Beorn" more than made up for it. I cannot believe, after his sacrifice of Bombadil and Goldberry from the original "The Lord of the Rings" Trilogy, that such a controversial and minor character would be included. So amazed was I that I temporarily forgot about him being in the book at all. My friend whom I seen this movie with leaned over and whispered, "Ooh, I bet that is the 'Carrock'".

I said, "The what?"

He said, "You know... Beorn's house." I knew he was talking about then. Beorn, the skin changer, who could change into a bear... A huge, raging bear, based on Jackson's adaption, who looked eerily like Gmork from "The Neverending Story", when we saw his face pushing through the door.

In human form, Beorn could have really stood a good eyebrow plucking.

Leaving Beorn, this movie was the status quo of what we come to expect from Jackson. He excels at taking books that are mainly narrative, and converting them into high-action movies that leave you breathless by the time it is over, without sacrificing much of the depth narrative plots provide. There is plenty of taboo surrounding the Necromancer, but Jackson finally gives us definitive evidence that the Necromancer is actually Sauron, and is setting up for "The Lord of the Rings".

Sauron, as he was in Middle-Earth's first age
and how I would have liked to have
seen him depicted in these movies.

I was hoping we'd see Sauron as he was, instead of the veiled and dark Sauron we acclimated to in the first trilogy. From a Christian perspective, Sauron would have been like a fallen angel who served under Morgoth, who would have been Middle-Earth's equivalent of Satan. A fallen "Maiar", in Tolkien's legendarium. I was hoping that Jackson might leave off all the armor and darkness to give us a glimpse of the Sauron as he would appear uncloaked. Beautiful. A icon of perfection. To put it in Scriptural language, Sauron would appear as "an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). No such luck though. We see the familiar shadow of the Sauron we already know. Clothed in darkness, violent, wretched, faithless, and accursed.

But I don't expect theologically sound heads among most movie-makers. Darkness remains darkness, and light remains light. What will such a preconceived, and well embedded, notion mean to the Church when Satan does decide to come on the scene. With evil so cleverly defined as darkness by our media and culture, what will happen when Satan appears, robbed in white, and speaking only benevolence and who "by peace shall destroy many" (Daniel 8:24-25)?

But I am not here to preach.

I was glad to see the thrush was included. Such seemingly innocuous details are very important to us who demand consistency between the book and the movie.

While the original "Rings" trilogy exploited the symantic and linguistic capabilities of the elves to the fullest, Jackson uses the barrel ride scene to exploit the acclaimed physical dexterity of the elvish race. Watching Legolas play hopscotch on the heads of dwarves was a humorous twist, not to mention seeing more of his amazing talents with a bow.

Interesting how Jackson is taking the concept that even elves can become greedy and subject to avarice found in the book to extremes. The elvish king comes off as unlikable as any character I've met in Jackson's movies to date, which will come to fruition in the third film, if Jackson stays true to the book in any capacity.

Smaug was perfect. What else can I say? Voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, who is quickly rising in my personal ranks as one of the best actors I have ever seen. I first saw Cumberbatch when he played William Pitt in the movie "Amazing Grace". He is also a grand Sherlock Holmes, another literary favorite of mine, and played a much younger Khan in "Star Trek: Into Darkness". He also voiced the Necromancer as well as Smaug, and will reprise the role of the Necromancer in the final installment of "The Hobbit", subtitled "There and Back Again". In fact, if Jackson had decided to depict Sauron in a more demonic, but less familiar, light, why not use Cumberbatch?

An older title for dragons was the title "Wyrm", which is dragon with four legs, not to be confused with "Wyvern", which is a dragon with two legs. Smaug was a wyrm, and the CG animators have finally nailed how a dragon should move. The thing I thought profound about this depiction of Smaug is that he was EXTREMELY reptilian in this movie. Most movies give dragons scales and reptilian eyes, but still make them very mammalian and rigid in their movement and behavior. Until he took to flight toward laketown, Smaug slithered with very fluid movements like a snake. It might even prove disconcerting to those with a innate fear of all things reptilian to see Smaug on the screen. Very serpentine in its movements. It looked like it could slither right off the screen and into the auditorium. Kudos to the Smaug's conception artists for allowing us to see a glimpse of his fire being generated in his chest before he breathes it. Lots of spiritual allegories and metaphors could be contrived by that seemingly benign detail. Like how fiery and destructive words we breathe find their origin in our hearts. Very well done. Also, Smaug was very verbose, in both the book and the movie, and exudes all the raw malevolence that has become the mark of draconian influences in ancient, as well as modern culture. I think perhaps he has been starved for companionship lying there in the mountain. He certainly loves to talk. I am sure both John Howe's and Alan Lee's artwork, who also depicts Smaug as very serpentine, influenced Smaug's cinematic conception as well.

What else can I say? The movie was great, and probably Jackson's best adaption to date. It makes me anxious to see next year's final movie.