There is a great divide right now within the body of Christ between those who have declared they will vote for/support Trump and those who say they will never vote for Trump.  By now you should know what is at stake (the Supreme Court, increased government overreach with the potential loss of 1st and 2nd amendment rights, and continuing to protect and even promote abortion—the moral atrocity of our time).  I don't like to write about things that have been addressed/explained elsewhere so I won't get into all the logical arguments for voting Trump.  If you don’t understand why voting for Trump makes more sense for a freedom-loving, America-loving Christian, then please read here or here.  I want to address what I have discovered is surprisingly missing from every Christian debate over this issue (Scripture and consistent theology).  

Much of the debate between Christians over Trump is a weird concoction of emotion, philosophy, conscience, and (sometimes faulty) theology.  Trump supporting Christians see Trump as a bulwark against continued economic oppression, unprecedented corruption (normally found in the 3rd world), and future persecution for expressing their faith.  NeverTrump Christians understand the worries of Trump-supporting Christians but they respond a few different ways: some say it's questionable whether Trump will stop or prevent these things; others say Trump supporting Christians do not trust God's Sovereign will to work through any ruler; others say that it's compromising our walk and our witness to support a leader (who calls himself a Christian) as licentious as Trump. When you look carefully at the real crux of the Trump debate between Christians what you have is actually a theology debate.   To provide clarity on this I will focus on 4 main areas:
 
1.  What do the Scriptures say?
2.  Consistent theology. 
3.  What about our conscience?
4.  Why don't we just pray?
 
1.  What do the Scriptures say?

I have asked neverTrump Christians what Bible verse(s) they believe Christians are violating if and when they vote for Trump.  The only Scriptures I have gotten in response was Ephesians 5:1-13 and 1 Timothy 2:1-3.  Let’s look at them both and then break them down.

Ephesians 5:1-13 “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible.”
 
1 Timothy 2:2 "Pray for rulers and for all who have authority so that we can have quiet and peaceful lives full of worship and respect for God.”


Now let’s break it down…

Ephesians 5:1-13 seems to apply to 3 areas:
1. Church leadership
2. Our everyday walk
3. Our Christian fellowship (those we congregate with).

Where this passage from Ephesians does NOT seem to apply is secular rulers/those in authority over us, or even those we work with or hire for a specific task (unrelated to the Body of Christ).  The Bible verse that does seem to apply to secular rulers/those in authority over us is 1 Timothy 2:2.

"Pray for rulers and for all who have authority SO THAT...[I'm pausing right here to emphasize the context and purpose of praying for rulers and those in authority. The purpose of praying is so that...]

WE CAN HAVE QUIET AND PEACEFUL LIVES full of worship and respect for God [i.e., so that we can live the lives God wants us to live outlined elsewhere in the Scriptures].

Now I'm sure Paul recommended prayer for rulers for "quiet and peaceful lives" because they didn't have the right to vote and prayer was all they had. I don't think it's too far a stretch to infer that if you have the right to vote you should continue to pray to accompany your vote so that we can have QUIET AND PEACEFUL LIVES full of worship and respect for God.

It seems like the theological mistake being made here by neverTrump Christians is that they are conflating the blueprint outlined in Scripture for Christian LEADERSHIP and fellowship, i.e., our moral duty to God and the Body of Christ with our duty to seek peace and quiet from secular/ungodly rulers (1 Tim 2:2) so that we can be free to live and worship God and follow the blueprint outlined in Ephesians for Christian LEADERSHIP (e.g., pastors) and fellowship.

In short, a vote for Trump is not a vote for him to be our Christian leader.  A vote for Trump is a vote for a secular/ungodly ruler who is more likely to allow our lives to continue quietly and peacefully  (i.e., without persecution).

2.  Consistent theology. 

Having sound theology is crucial to our walk, but it takes wanting to know about God, His Word, and what He wants us to do while we are here on earth.  Why we don’t just pray is tied to this as well but the main thing I want to bring up is the hypocrisy of many neverTrump Christians who claim those who vote Trump don’t trust God’s sovereign will.   A constant argument from neverTrump Christians is that "God doesn't need Trump to do his will"..."God is sovereign"..."Stop being concerned about who will rule the country..." But then they proceed to be concerned about the Christian witness.  In short, they preach for every Trump supporter to not worry about who rules over us because God is sovereign, but they don't seem to trust that same Sovereignty when it comes to the witness of the Body. 

For clarification, I believe we should concern ourselves (not to the point of anxiety) about our witness just as I believe we should concern ourselves (not to the point of anxiety) about those who rule over us; because, I believe although God is sovereign, we are called to work with Him in this world (i.e., in the affairs of men and the body of Christ).

3.  What about our conscience?

Our conscience has a role in our lives and decision-making but it is not the Supreme arbiter of right and wrong.  How do you think abortion and the acceptance of homosexuality/same-sex marriage has become so prevalent in the Church?  It's from Christians following their conscience. "They are people too", and “What about a woman who was raped?” are all examples of Christians following their conscience and ignoring the fact that all humans bear the image of God (Gen 1:27, Jeremiah 1:5, 7:6) ,  and that God designed sex for man and woman in marriage (Matt 19:1-8).  This is the kind of evil that can prevail when we simply “follow/vote our conscience." 

So the argument from neverTrump Christians is they believe they can’t go wrong if they follow their conscience, and since it violates their conscience to vote for a man like Trump, they believe they can’t go wrong NOT voting for Trump.  Again, this is faulty theology.  Study "matters of conscience" (Romans 14) and what you will find is that it applies to INCONSEQUENTIAL matters that are merely between us and God (eating certain meat, the Sabbath, etc.). When it comes to CONSEQUENTIAL matters (that affects others), however, we are to use wisdom (Matt 10:23, Ephesians 5:15-17).  I believe the Trump issue is not a sin/conscience issue; it is a wisdom issue (is it wise to vote for Trump?). 
 
4.  Why don't we just pray?

While prayer is an essential part of followers of Christ, it is not sufficient for our duties as followers of Christ.  Anyone who has read God’s Word knows He calls us to do more than just pray.  Here are just a few verses demonstrating how God has called us to do more than just pray while we are here on earth:

Genesis 1:28—“Be fruitful and multiply…”(notice God’s Word doesn’t say, “Just pray for fruitfulness and multiplication.”  This verse even goes further and says we are to “subdue” the earth/govern it (again, not just pray for it).

Matt 28:19—"Go and makes disciples of all nations, baptizing them…"(notice God’s Word doesn’t say, “Just remember to pray for all nations...”)

2 Thessalonians 3—"The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat…"(notice God’s Word doesn’t say, “just pray that your Lord in heaven will provide extra for those unwilling to work).  This verse was an action/inaction meet consequence verse. 

1 Corinthians 5: 11-13--“You must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler.  Do not even eat with such people...’Expel the wicked person from among you.’” (notice God’s Word doesn’t say, “Just pray for those who claim to a brother or sister but are sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, slanderer, drunkard, swindler, i.e., the evil person among you.” 

In short, God calls us to be involved in the world He created, not just be like monks in a monastery.  There have been many Christians throughout history who have objected to Christian involvement in anything confrontational physical or political (e.g., loyalists during the Revolutionary War, and pacifists during the Civil and World Wars).  Christians have been saying, “We just need to pray” for centuries.  When we look to God’s Word, however, we see our duty is to pray AND be involved physically and vocally (i.e., more than just “pray.”) when necessary.  

In conclusion, 1) there is no Scripture neverTrump Christians can point to that a follower of Christ is violating voting for Trump, 2) ridiculing those who are concerned over who rules over them because they “don’t trust God’s sovereign will” while you are concerned over the image of the Body of Christ is talking out of both sides of your mouth, 3) following our conscience is for inconsequential matters between us and God, not consequential matters (like who will rule over your neighbors and children), and 4) God calls us to be involved in the world He created, not just pray all day like monks in a monastery.  Even those who claim all we need to do is pray are probably glad that those who fought the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII did not just stay home and pray. 

I pray this has provided some clarity to this contentious issue.  Don’t be afraid to speak up.    Please continue to pray, share this, and vote for the candidate who is most likely going to allow us to have quiet and peaceful lives, full of worship and respect for God! 
God bless.

​My wife and I have been married for 17 years.  We both love the Lord, and we both pray together but that doesn’t mean we always communicate in a way that honors the Lord.  Communication is easy when there is agreement, but when disagreement or disappointment comes is when the temptation to communicate in an ungodly way comes.  The last time my wife and I had a disagreement that led to ungodly communication, I prayed to God to give me wisdom in how to deal with this continual problem in our home.  I would like to share with you what God put on my heart.
 
Communication rules for Christian homes:

The following rules are not meant to control individuals within a home, but rather put a lid on sin that can permeate throughout a home through poor communication. "As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord."  Joshua 24:15. This means we strive to serve the Lord in every area of our lives including how we communicate.

1.  No name calling (e.g., "You are a psycho,” “you’re a jerk,” etc.)  If someone is acting in an ungodly way, don't respond by calling them a name; instead, simply ask them, "Do you think God is OK with the way you are talking/acting right now?" 

2.  No generalizing (e.g., "You always...," "You never...," "Every time...," etc.).

3. No negative assumptions  (e.g., "You like to [insert slanderous statement here”].  We operate from a principle of charity.  That means we give others in our home the benefit of the doubt and don't assume negative things that are debatable about the other (1 Corinthians 13:7).

4. No attitudes or tones that exude "I can't believe you (you are such a disappointment)."  An "I can't believe you!" type response is an understandable response to major mess ups ("I can't believe you gambled the rent money away," "I can't believe you decided to drink and drive,”etc.), but not minor slip ups and irritations (e.g., "I thought you were going to start working out,” “I thought you said you would stop leaving your stuff on the counter,” etc.). The key is tone/demeanor/attitude:  One can say, "Hey honey, I thought you were going to work out today” (with a light-hearted curious helpful reminder tone), or "I thought you said you would stop leaving your stuff on the counter” (with a judgmental tone).  Again, the key is tone/demeanor/attitude.

5.  No impatience or demanding our own way.  1 Corinthians 13:4-5 (NLT) "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable..."
If someone takes a while (to fix a bad habit, communicate, etc.)  we are patient with them.  The first description of love is patience, so by not being patient we are not acting in love.  One can politely ask if the major point can be succinctly made, but if the other person is not comfortable with "getting right to the point" we show them grace and don't demand our own way.  If we don't have time because we have somewhere to go or other things that must be taken care of immediately, we respectfully ask if the discussion can be pushed to a later time (e.g., "Hey honey, is there any way we can continue this later when we have more time?").  If whatever is being discussed is important enough for one person in the home, it should be respected (with thoughtfulness and patience) by the others they want it discussed with.  To be dismissive of a discussion that hasn't been satisfactorily discussed (satisfactory=all who are part of the discussion are satisfied) is demanding one's own way. 
 
6.  Communication grades:

A is for Awesome, Appreciation (e.g., "I really appreciate that you...,"  "Thank you...," "I just wanted to let you know you are doing an awesome job...").

B is for Beneficial--not as awesome as A, but it's not indifferent like C, (e.g., "I see what you're saying,” "I know where you are coming from,” etc.)

C is for Clarity (fact based like Spock).  This is acceptable (it's not necessarily desired by many personality types but it's a necessary way to communicate clearly on debatable matters where oftentimes the matter of dispute is somewhere in the details. It's important to note that although we may be crying out on the inside for A, when we disagree with others on the outside it looks like we are looking for clarity, and therefore the person who cannot see what is going on inside is not being disrespectful when they respond appropriately to what your outside is demanding.  In short, C is what is to be expected when discussing contentious topics and disagreements.

D is for Disrespectful. This is not acceptable.  The disrespect can be explicit (e.g., “you are a bad spouse, parent, or person,”  "that was a dumb idea,” etc.), implicit (condescending attitudes of "DUH!,” "I can't believe you didn't...,” etc.), or inappropriate sarcasm  (e.g., “Nice job!” after a mess up like locking one’s keys in the car).  One thing on sarcasm:  Sarcasm is an art.  There is a fine line between being sarcastic and funny and being sarcastic and rude.  If you don’t know where that line is, then you are probably being rude and you should stop trying to use sarcasm to be funny.

F is for Fowl language.  Like D, this is never acceptable or justifiable.
While B and A are desirable, C is neutral (not disrespectful), D and F are undesirable.  If a family member communicates at a D or F level they are to be called out on it respectfully (“Would God approve of the way you are talking/acting?”).  If we feel disrespected it doesn’t justify disrespect in return (“Don’t repay evil for evil.” 1 Peter 3:9). We don't call out someone for communicating at a C level because we thought of a way they could have communicated at a better level (that's just nit-picking).  Communication at a C level should only be addressed respectfully if it is becoming a chronic issue (where B and A have become non-existent).

When someone claims the other is being disrespectful:
Not only do we operate from a principle of charity (assuming the best of one another), we also operate from a principle of humility.  That means the one being accused of being disrespectful yields to the one complaining they are being disrespected.  If the one being accused of being disrespectful doesn't know how they are being disrespectful they can ask the other one how they are being disrespectful.  A simple answer of, "your tone" or "when you said such and such it came across disrespectful” would suffice.
 
When I shared this with my wife and daughter I told them I believe these are good rules, they are godly rules, and we would be wise to follow them.  They agreed.   I pray these rules can help you and your family honor God with the way you communicate to one another.

Major areas of focus:

• The left's need for bigotry
• Individual rights/equal protection vs special treatment
• The argument from the left defeats nothing but a straw man
• This isn't a matter of hatred or bigotry; it's a matter of safety and sanity

I never thought the trans movement would garner the same national attention and force as other social tinkerings from the left (like the same-sex marriage movement).  I really thought common sense (i.e., the privacy and safety of women and children--that transcends culture and time) would overwhelm and ultimately prevail over the twisted rhetoric of the left. But social justice warriors’ constant need to find some new “bigotry” to fight against (because there are not enough racists and sexists out in the open anymore) makes them look really hard for bigotry, or they stretch the definition far enough for there to be a problem somewhere that needs fixing—progressive fixing.  This insatiable search for bigotry mixed with a feckless and complacent church (i.e., the conscience of society) that is continually conforming to the patterns of this world has us where we are today—continuing to slide down the slippery slope of depravity with no end in sight.

Individual rights/equal protection vs special treatment:  The gay rights movement was (at least initially) about individual rights and privacy ("stay out of my bedroom" was the mantra of many in the movement). It didn't impose anything on the overwhelming majority of those who didn't agree with their lifestyle.  It merely asked society to leave them alone and not keep them from making a living or face the same discrimination women and blacks experienced in the past.  When it came to same-sex marriage however, the request went from "just leave us alone" to, "you need to redefine marriage for us!"  Of course that wasn't the explicit message, but that was the implications of what the movement entailed.  Similarly, this new trans movement is not asking to be merely left alone (not harassed, persecuted); the movement is asking for accommodations (special treatment).  They won't tell you that though. In fact, same-sex marriage and this new trans movement is being sold to the public under the same guise of "equal protection of the law." 

The Justice Department said that "access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII," a section of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination against workers on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.

Now if you read or hear that quote from the DOJ too quickly the sleight-of-word trickery can slip by and you have just been bamboozled by the straw man tactics of the left.  A straw man argument is when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position so that it's easier to knock down. The left does this a lot, and they have done it again here.  Let me dissect the argument so the straw man is easier to see. The argument from the left is essentially this:

P1: Laws that grant non-transgender people rights that transgender people don't have are unconstitutional.

P2:  Most bathroom policies state non-transgender people have the right to use the bathroom that identifies with their gender (i.e., the bathroom they want to use).

P3: Transgender people do not have the right to use the bathroom that identifies with their gender (i.e., the bathroom they want to use).

Conclusion: Therefore, these bathroom policies grant non-transgender people access to rights transgender people do not have and are therefore unconstitutional.

The reason this argument is fallacious is because premise 2 is completely false.  Premise 2 ASSUMES bathroom policies/laws are based on “being able to use the bathroom that matches your gender identity/the one you want” unless you are transgender.  But “gender identity” or “desired bathroom” has never been the basis for male and female bathrooms.  Biology/physical plumbing/physical reality (i.e., what is objective/mind independent) is and always has been the basis for public bathroom, locker room, and shower policy.  Psychology (i.e., what is subjective/mind DEPENDENT) has never been the basis for bathroom policy.
 
The left is using the same straw man tactics they used in the battle for same-sex marriage.  How?  Let me explain:

What many people don’t realize is that gay people had the same rights as heterosexuals prior to the Supreme Court ruling. They could marry anyone of legal age of the OPPOSITE SEX. Heterosexuals could not marry people of the same sex (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have a right to be married to more than one person of the opposite gender (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have the right to marry anyone without their consent (ditto for homosexuals), heterosexuals did not have the right to marry an animal (ditto for homosexuals). But the assumption is that laws were stated as, "You can marry 'who you LOVE' (as long as you're not homosexual).” But that has never been the nature of the law or a necessary, or even a sufficient component of marriage.  As you can see, their appeal to the 14th amendment regarding this issue was fallacious because it did nothing but knock down a straw man.

It’s sad that we have to spend this much time arguing for common sense, but these are the times in which we live.  I will end this topic with a quote from the Facebook page Logical Faith: “There are only two types of men who enter women's bathrooms, locker rooms and fitting rooms: the dangerous and the deluded. If we indulge the latter, we will embolden the former. This isn't a matter of hatred or bigotry; it's a matter of safety and sanity.”

When discussing the Gospels with skeptics, many times skeptics will bounce back and forth between different positions of skepticism (one minute they accuse the gospel writers of collusion, the next minute they say the Gospels are full of contradictions, and the next minute they say the text is corrupted, i.e., we have no idea what the original writers wrote).  In short, the skeptic can't get the reason for his skepticism straight; as a result, it's difficult for the conversation to gain traction.  To prevent them from these schizophrenic chameleon tactics, the following trilemma will force them to take a position rather than just play the role of mocker and heckler.
​
Either the gospel writers were delusional men who coincidentally all experienced the same delusion, were unscrupulous opportunists who were trying to spread lies (for reasons beyond historical and rational comprehension),  or men of integrity committed to the truth.  In other words, the driving force behind the gospel accounts was one of the following:

1. Confusion and with it contradiction--

This view takes into account the swoon (Jesus didn't really die) theory, imposter  (the disciples were fooled by an imposter) theory, and hallucination (the disciples imagined the resurrection) theory.  In all incidences it's safe to say the disciples were pretty confused. If this is the theory the skeptic wants to cast his lot, then he can't trust the reliability of the witness; therefore, he can't just pick and choose which is a reliable/authentic saying of Jesus Christ and which is not.  For example, the skeptic (Muslim, atheist, etc.) can't pick the verses of Jesus saying, "the Father is greater than I" in John 14:28 as evidence against His deity, while at the same time denying what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit in John 14:26--"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."  If they trust the accounts of what Jesus said regarding the Father they should trust the accounts of what He said about the Holy Spirit.  Accepting one statement as authentic and authoritative while dismissing another as reliable, when both statements come from the same source of authority, is nothing more than cherry-picking statements that affirm what you are trying to prove.  This is not truth-seeking, this is circular reasoning.   


2. Collusion--

"Do we have any good reason to believe that the apostles were driven to lie by [greed, sexual desire, or pursuit of power]? No.  There is nothing in history (neither Christian history nor secular history) to suggest that the disciples had anything to gain from their testimony related to Jesus...As we examine the motives of the gospel writers, it's clear that the forces that typically compel people to lie didn't drive the authors."
--J. Warner Wallace (former atheist, and homicide detective who researched the "chain of custody" i.e., transmission of the Gospels, used his area of expertise--forensic statement analysis--and applied it to the gospel accounts, and determined their reliability.  He documented this analysis in the book, Cold-Case Christianity).

Additionally, if collusion is the theory the skeptic wants to rely on, there can be no appeal to contradictions (since part of the goal of colluding to tell a story is to tell a consistent one), and just like the confusion theory the skeptic can't trust ANYTHING, so he can't just pick and choose which sayings are authentic and which are part of the collusion conspiracy theory. 

3. Commitment to reporting the truth (of what they saw and heard)--

If this is the case, the gospel writers were committed to reporting the acts, sayings, and life of Jesus as accurate as possible; therefore, among four different authors one would expect variation and even paradoxes, but not contradictions.  Furthermore, the writers considered who they were writing to in order to emphasize the details of Christ that would be most relevant to them.  Matthew’s Gospel was written to the Jewish people of his day to tell them the long-awaited Messiah has come;  Mark’s Gospel was written to the people in Rome; Luke’s Gospel was written to a person named Theophilus; John’s Gospel was written to the Greco-Roman world/gentile Christians and emphasized Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God who existed before Creation, and is the true Lamb of sacrifice through whom we receive the gift of eternal life.  The unequivocal language John used throughout his Gospel was so that it could not be misunderstood that Jesus Christ was the one true God of the universe.

3a. Corruption of the texts (i.e. the integrity of the gospel writers is not doubted; however, the transmission and the copies have been corrupted and therefore we don't know for sure what the original writers wrote.)  The only ones making this argument are ill-informed skeptics who do not know the New Testament documents are the most well attested documents of antiquity, or those presupposing the view they already hold into the text (e.g. Muslims).  We answer 3a. in depth here.  The three minute video below of Shabir Ally, a Muslim scholar, demonstrates how Muslims (like Shabir) use circular reasoning when it comes to interpreting the Gospels.

Conclusion:

Since we can't see, hear, taste, touch, or smell the past, the highest degree of certainty to which we can arrive regarding what happened in the past is that of probability (i.e. what explanation is more likely given all the facts?).  When considering all the indisputable facts of Jesus and the origin of the disciples' belief in the resurrection, one can see how ridiculous every confusion, delusion, and conspiracy theory is.  There is simply no CAUSAL connection (historical evidence) to back up any of these theories; thus, you not only have to deny the evidence we do have, but you have to rely on speculation just so the conclusion can have some semblance of logical consistency.  The only reason to deny view 3 as the most probable explanation of the facts is if one assumes no personal God exists and therefore miracles are not possible (i.e. uses circular reasoning), or if they presuppose their worldview (as we showed how Muslims do) as more accurate than historical unanimity.  Some reputable scholars who are not Christian may hold views 1), 2), or 3a) implicitly in their conclusion (since they are not a Christian); however, this is not based on criteria employed by professional historians but instead carefully crafted methodology that suits their bias--either an anti-supernatural or anti-Christian bias.  The astute observer will notice this methodology sets the standard so high that if it were to be applied beyond the Gospels, nothing in the ancient past could be known.

Lastly, it’s one thing if a skeptic can’t take a position on the trilemma because they don’t have enough information.  But if they do have the same historical facts of Jesus and the Gospels that we have (which can be easily obtained on the internet and enough of it could be summed up in less than 5 minutes in the video below) then they need to make their choice and be consistent with it.  When historical facts are brought up that embarrass the view they hold, they can recant their view and take time to reconsider the options.  But they shouldn’t act like a chameleon and change their skin of skepticism mid-conversation for the sake of just trying to poke holes in our worldview.  That type of intellectual dishonesty is as blatant as it is repugnant.  But, if they are coming from a worldview that requires no moral accountability, why should they be intellectually honest?

Our last blog entry (Josh) introduced the subject of God allowing hardships in our lives despite our crying out in prayer for God to prevent them from happening, or stop the ones that we may be enduring now.  I (James) want to continue that subject and reflect on a personal story of God not answering my prayer to heal my mother.

Many scriptures throughout the New Testament reverberate the message of “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”  (Matthew 7:7 NKJ).  James elaborates a little more in James 4:2-3 when he says, "...You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures."  But what about unselfish prayers for the healing of others; why do some of those prayers seem to go unanswered?

When we read verses like the ones above it is tempting to believe God will always answer “yes” to our prayers (if our motives are virtuous).  Many Christians believe prayers that go unanswered were simply not prayed with enough faith.  This view states: “Had the person prayed with enough faith their prayer (for literally ANYTHING altruistic and noble) would have been answered.”  I don’t think Christians who believe this (and I understand there are some prominent pastors who subscribe to this view) have thought this out very well.  Here are some of the problems with this view:

1) This view does not follow NECESSARILY from the texts above.  Notice the specificity within the text (“IT will be given.”)  In other words, while “it” can represent many things, it does not imply ALL things.  Additionally, the verse in James seems to be using language similar to what we find in Proverbs (i.e., not a list of iron-clad promises, but rather general principles, which if applied consistently will lessen the impact this fallen world will have on us).

2) This view limits God’s sovereign will.  While orthodox Christian theology holds that our free will is limited to God’s sovereign will, this view flips that on its head and limits God’s sovereign will to our prayers (if they are made with enough faith).  In short, assuming our motives are pure, this view puts every believer in a theoretical sovereign position of power (if they just have enough faith).    Now some might try to wiggle out of this by saying, “No, no…God is still sovereign and can decide (arbitrarily) if our prayer had enough faith.”  But they are just jumping right out of the frying pan and into the fire because this makes God arbitrary (which He is NOT).
​
3)  It diminishes God’s wisdom and it assumes that our limited knowledge is somehow all-wise (as long as our motives at the moment are noble).  Some people may pray for something with a pure heart, but God knows the effects this request will have on the person praying for it and it may be worse (in the long run) for the person (and perhaps many others) to have it.  The bottom line is our knowledge is limited but this view gives our limited knowledge more credit than it deserves purely on the basis of faith and motives.  

​Now that we’ve gone over the reasons why believing God will answer EVERY prayer (if we just have enough faith and the right motive) is flawed, let’s consider a theologically, and biblically consistent view of how God answers prayers. 
​
God knows what we need and what is best for us, but He still wants us to ask. He doesn't want to just give us the things that He knows are best for us, because then we will not be thankful for them, we will expect them. This is why we must pray without ceasing, and pray for everything. There are some things God wants to give us, but He has not given us simply because we have not asked yet.  On the other hand, there are other reasons (beyond our limited knowledge) that God denies our prayer requests. The bottom line: praying with enough faith and the right motives is necessary for God to answer “YES” to our prayer requests; however, praying with enough faith and the right motives is not sufficient for God to answer “YES” to our prayer requests—adequate faith and proper motives must also be aligned with God’s sovereign will.  To clarify that last sentence, consider the following ways God may answer our prayers:
 
--“No, because it will harm you.”
--“No, because you do not understand my plan.” 
--“Yes but not yet.”
-- “YES”     

Most of us ask for things that are actually harmful to our souls; therefore, God will say “NO” to them. When we pray for wealth and riches, the answer is usually going to be “No because it will harm you.” There are very few people that can actually put riches and wealth to good use in an altruistic way that is in accordance with God's will. For many Christians, having great wealth would cause them to neglect or forget about God and start trusting money instead of Him. We must understand, however, that God does not need our submission, service, money, or praise. God lacks nothing, and needs nothing. He does not grieve over our rebellion for His sake; He grieves over our rebellion for OUR sake. He knows how insatiable and pernicious a self-serving soul can be. He knows that submitting to Him, seeking Him, and praising Him is what WE NEED!
 
When we pray for progress, or opportunities like a better job, many times the answer will be, “Yes but not yet.”  We pray for certain things that are in accordance with God's will but our timing is usually when we see it fit.  Only God knows the perfect time.
​

When we pray for healing (especially the healing of the terminally ill), the answer will either be “YES”, or “No because you do not understand My plan.” God answers “YES” to the requests that are in accordance with His perfect will. God will heal some, but others are ill because God has a greater plan that none of those directly affected can understand. I can attest to this personally as I prayed countless times the moment I found out my mother had cancer. I truly believed God would heal her. I remember when the doctors informed my mother that she only had a few months to live. She told me the news but I didn't believe the doctors. I knew my God was more powerful than any cancer and if I truly believed as I prayed, then my prayers would be answered. After all, I was praying unselfishly for a God-fearing woman. 

I can still remember the day I was informed of her death as if it were yesterday. My grandfather knocked on my door while I was asleep and told me I have to go to the hospital because my mother passed away! Passed away!? Most people having all the information I had received prior to this would have been prepared for that news, but I was not. I was in shock and disbelief. When I arrived at the hospital, a priest, or counselor told me I could see her to “say goodbye.” They told me it would be good to see her to bring “closure.” I thought maybe I do need to see her so I know for sure. I should have listened to my aunt when she looked me right in the eyes and said, “You don't need to go in there Jimmy.” When I opened the door where my mother's body lied I saw her blue lips and colorless face. I couldn't bear the sight for longer than that one second. Even though I already had the news and knew she was dead, there was something awful about that sight. I had never seen death before, let alone my own mother like that, and the sight was heart-breaking. I never cried so hard or felt so much pain in my life then at that very moment. Just writing this and having to relive that moment brings back the pain. 
 
But where was God during all this pain?  C.S. Lewis describes the way he felt when he searched for the help and presence of God when he grieved over the loss of his wife.  “But go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and what do you find?  A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double bolting on the inside.  After that, silence.” (A Grief Observed) 
 
The feeling of desolation that accompanies grief may be out of design and not apathy.  There remains certain scientific mysteries within the early stages of embryonic development (life); these mysteries are why scientists can have all the essential elements and conditions to create life, but they cannot create life.  It's as if something supernatural (our spirit) is infused and is necessary to make life.
 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NCV) “You should know that your body is a temple for the Holy Spirit who is in you.  You have received the Holy Spirit from God.”  

I don't know exactly how someone's spirit is infused in their body, but we know death is that point when the spirit leaves the body (see 2 Corinthians 5:8).  The isolation and hollowness that accompany the great grief from the end of a life are evidence to something supernatural.  No amount of random mutation, and natural selection could produce the degree of emotion that flows when a loved one's spirit has left this earth.   But God's perfection is not called into question from the equivocacy of this grief; on the contrary, His perfection is highlighted.  You see, we wouldn’t feel as much joy in life if we didn’t feel that much grief in death.

I can look back now and realize that when I prayed for my mother to be healed, God's answer was, “No, because you do not understand My plan.” God had a plan for my life that could not become reality with my mother alive (the details of my life during that time are too much for this post, but I can say with confidence that my life today is mutually exclusive from a life with my mother alive).  That is, the reality that I know of today—with my beautiful wife and daughter, and even the depth of my relationship with God (as evident in this ministry and my writings)—would not be if my mother did not die when she did. I would not be writing this now and I could not be the same testament of God's glory if God answered, “YES” to my prayers of healing my mother. As Garth Brooks put it in one of his hit songs, "Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers."  

A few weeks ago I was at an early prayer meeting with some fellow believers on the construction site that I am currently working on. It was the first meeting of what I hope will be many. One of the things that we prayed for is that God would keep everyone safe and that no one would be injured. Well later that day we had a first aid incident with one of the people that works for me. He is fine and only suffered a little discomfort. But still, even after we had prayed for God to protect us on the job, an injury had occurred the very same day. 

So what are some of the conclusions that can be drawn from this? Did we not have enough faith when we prayed? I really don't think that is the case. Was the attack from the enemy that much stronger to discourage us? It's possible. Was the severity of the injury reduced because of our prayer? Again, it’s possible. 

Here is what we know, God in his power and wisdom allowed it to happen, which means that the individual who was injured, was within God’s will. Here is the point: my employee put himself in a situation that allowed him to be injured. (I don't want to get into details on the injury because it is not relevant to the point that I am making. You will just have to trust me when I tell you his actions contributed to the injury.) 

Throughout our days we make several decisions; some are meaningless and insignificant while some are big and potentially life changing. When we make a decision to sin, there are going to be consequences, and God is under no obligation to rescue us from those consequences.  He may decide to intervene and He may not. His will is perfect, ours is not. We should strive to align our will with God's. There is no problem with asking God to deliver us from those consequences, but His answer may be, “no.” It could be that God wants to strengthen us through these hardships, and when the time is right, according to His will, He will deliver us from them. We may not be delivered from them in this life. Rather than question our faith or God's grace, we would be better off asking ourselves how we can glorify God in our current situation.

Here is the good news though. If you put your faith in Jesus Christ (that He came to this 
earth as the perfect sinless Lamb of God and died for your sins), then the ultimate consequence of your sin (death and hell) will be covered by His righteousness; you will then stand before the throne and be found faultless and made whole. The blip of our time here on earth will be a distant memory, and we will live in the presence of God for eternity.

Proverbs 9:10 (NASB)

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

What does it mean to fear the Lord? Does this mean we should be frightened of the Lord the way some of us fear monsters?

“The Hebrew term for fear typically used in the expression ‘fear of God/Yahweh’ is yirat from the verb yare.  W. Van Pelt and W. Kaiser indicate that the word has a semantic range that runs from respect to horror.  It is difficult to determine the exact English equivalent to this word in the phrase.  In most occurrences the ‘fear of God’ is a virtue that is encouraged and leads to right behavior and good results.  In some occurrences the ‘fear of God’ is negative.  Thus it is potentially misleading to say that yirat always means ‘fear’ or ‘respect.’  But even in its positive use (such as Prov 1:7), there is a debate as to whether it means ‘respect’ or ‘fear.’  It may be that the word falls somewhere in between these two English words.  “Respect” may not do justice to the gravity of the word, though “fear” may connote an unhealthy dread.”—Tremper Longman III & Peter Enns (Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings)

In light of the insight from Old Testament scholars Longman and Enns, let’s consider three options for interpreting “fear” in the context of Proverbs 9:10.

A)  dread, live in terror, and tremble (negative)

B)   reverence, respect, piety (positive)

C)  somewhere between A and B (e.g. “I am in awe of God and imagining a life in opposition to God terrifies me.”)

Now let’s look at some scriptures that use some form of the word fear or dread and compare/contrast that with Proverbs 9:10.   What I will show below is that (A) as the sole interpretation of the text will fail the biblical exegesis test, (B) will fail the experiential relevance test, and therefore only (C) harmonizes biblical exegesis with experiential relevance. 

“This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.”—Deut 2:25

“And he took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the coasts of Israel by the hands of messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen. And the fear of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out with one consent.”--1 Sam 11:7

The Hebrew word for dread in Deuteronomy and fear in 1 Samuel is pahad.  Pahad is to dread, live in terror, and tremble.  The Hebrew word for fear in Proverbs 9:10 is yirah. While pahad is used strictly in the negative (e.g. “dread”) sense, yirah is used both in the positive (reverence, respect, piety) and the negative (fear and terror) sense.   The Hebrew writers would have most likely used the word pahad if (A) was the proper context of this passage.  Therefore, we can eliminate (A) as the most plausible interpretation of Proverbs 9:10.

Many interpret fear (yirah) in Proverbs 9:10 as only positive (i.e. reverence, respect, and piety), but let’s consider the following:  While all those who fear God have respect, reverence, and wonder for God, not all those who have respect, reverence, and wonder for God (e.g. universalists, active "gay Christians", porn addicted Christians, and even King David when he committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed Uriah) fear God.  This is not just a theological fact.  This truth is evident through experience.  That is, we can find many who respect, wonder at God/revere Him (i.e. praise Him with the utmost sincerity every Sunday during praise and worship) but their lives are replete with sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, arrogance, fits of rage, envy and the like because they don't fear God. 

Now the last sentence above is incoherent if we apply (B) to the word fear, and since (A) has already been eliminated it seems the only thing left is (C).  In other words, the lives of many who revere God are completely void of the knowledge and wisdom Proverbs talks about.  For many, it’s quite the contrary--their lives are fraught with folly from being led by their flesh because they have no reason to dread living in the flesh.  I personally know many Christians like this, and I am sure you know some too.  You might be one of them. In fact, show me a fallen pastor ensnared in adultery or pornography and I will show you someone who has lost the fear of God.  That is, I don’t think these fallen men of God have lost their reverence/respect for God as much as they no longer tremble at the idea of living in opposition to God (i.e. fear of consequences for their sinful actions). 

Now that we have an appropriate understanding of the context of the fear of the Lord in Proverbs 9:10 let’s consider the effect not fearing the Lord has on our lives. 

When we don't fear the Lord, our lives actually become filled with anxiety from the complications of all of life’s variables.  Satan will always find a way for us to choose what is wrong and deleterious to our mind, body, and soul.  Being able to discern right from wrong is true wisdom.  When we fear the Lord, the distinction between right and wrong becomes bolder.  The grey areas of life begin to fade.  Confusion turns into clarity.  This clarity comes from the simplicity of understanding God's unequivocal laws and fearing consequences from disobeying them. 

Below is a common real life example of how fearing the Lord can be the beginning of wisdom.

As married couples all know, at one point or another during their marriage, one or both of the spouses may come across the temptation to commit adultery. How will they respond? If you were to ask many married couples today if they would ever cheat on their spouse, I am sure over 95% would say “no”. If you were to ask them why they wouldn’t, I am sure an overwhelming response would be, “because I love my spouse.” While that isn’t a bad reason, it isn’t the wisest response.  The wise reason is because “I fear the Lord.”

If you are married, and you read the news about a site like Ashley Madison and how many spouses actively sought an affair, it is tempting to feel proud of yourself if you have never even entertained the thought.  Proverbs 11:2 says, “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.”  Proverbs 16:18 says, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”  Therefore, fear the Lord who has made it clear that the proud are humbled.  Additionally, just because you haven’t doesn’t mean you never will. As Ravi Zacharias has put it, “Every man who is an able-bodied man will tell you temptation stalks you every day. Does it have anything to do with your love for your spouse? Probably not, because you can love your spouse with 100% desire to love the person, but the human body reacts to the sight, entertained by the imagination and gives you all kinds of false hints that stolen waters are going to be sweeter.” 

I believe that most spouses at some point in the marriage will feel like they don’t love the other spouse anymore or don’t feel in love with them anymore. This doesn’t mean that the spouse will just run out and look to commit adultery. Satan is more methodical than to just throw that temptation at you. Satan knows the passion you temporarily have to run out, “have a fling” and show your spouse you won’t be mistreated, neglected, or disrespected will subside if enough time goes by and you have time to reason with yourself. Satan will chip away at you with constant irritation from the other spouse until you are so sick and disgusted by just the sight or thought of your spouse. Satan will cast doubt into your mind about whether you and your spouse are actually “meant to be.” And what perfect timing it is to ease into the picture some prince charming or beautiful seductress that has things in common with you and understands you the way a “soul mate” should. What spouse could handle this type of confusion? I say confusion and not temptation because it will not feel like a temptation. It will feel right. It will feel like destiny. If the spouse gives in to their own understanding of what is right and forgets that God instructed us to not commit adultery, and til death do us part, they will be tearing their own lives apart. Proverbs 6:32 says, “A man who takes part in adultery has no sense, he will destroy himself.”

We have to remember that Satan is smarter than us. The only spouses that can survive that perfect storm thrown from Satan are the ones who fear the Lord. The only one smarter and more powerful than Satan is our Lord. When you fear the Lord, life becomes a lot easier because we understand the boundaries (the rules or laws).  And if something is about to breach that boundary, we know that is wrong and to stay away.   This is the wisdom in the fear of the Lord.

Dear Mike,

I listened to your sermon on same-sex attraction after the Supreme Court ruling, and then I saw a video (below) of your son Ryan (pastor at Eastlake Church in Seattle) that seemed to conflict with your stated position of the church.   I have a few points and questions that I hope you can address.  First, can you address the position your son has clarified below.  Are you ok with it or not?  Why or why not? 

I appreciate you clarifying the orthodox stance of Eastlake Church on homosexuality and marriage, and explaining to the congregation that Jesus affirmed marriage as one man and one woman.  However, your clarification on Eastlake's position regarding homosexuality/marriage got sort of lost in the constant reminders on how Christians shouldn't talk to/judge homosexuality. You quoted Billy Graham: “It is the Holy Spirit's job to convict, God's job to judge and my job to love.”  If you are fine with leaving the task of conviction to the Holy Spirit, why did you find it necessary to convict Christians who might talk in an insensitive way toward practicing homosexual Christians?  Shouldn't you have left that to the Holy Spirit?  Why are you picking and choosing which sins you point out and which ones you leave to the Holy Spirit?  Either we work with the Holy Spirit and affirm what He is working in the lives of sinners, or we never say anything regarding other sinner's behavior.  If you want to appeal to 1 Cor 5:11-13 that is fine, that is a verse I will bring up below; but if your reasoning is because you were talking to "CHRISTIANS" not the world, then good so am I!  Why don't you talk with that same fervor to "CHRISTIANS" who are practicing homosexuals?  You go out of your way to handle their immorality with kid gloves so much that it's questionable whether they are even in need of repentance.

By the way, in my experience over the past few years, the "Christians" who need to learn how to communicate in a Christ-like manner toward those they disagree with/believe are sinning, are "Christian" homosexual advocates and "pro-choicers.” The bullying, harassing, name-calling, and overall vitriol today from Christians is OVERWHELMINGLY from those who support homosexuality and abortion (i.e. the left). So please Mike, if you are going to talk to Christians about how not to communicate, please just look to your nearest liberal Christian demonizing their Christian conservative brother or sister over gay rights, or abortion rights for plenty of examples.

One comment you said struck me as odd: "we are a queer friendly church." There are two ways to interpret this statement: 

(A). By "queer friendly" your message was something to the effect of: "If you are trying to detangle yourself from the gay lifestyle (i.e. trying to offer your body as a living sacrifice to God by denying your fleshly desires and appetites, and be led by the Spirit) and wish to turn away from the sexual immorality that all homosexual acts fall under (regardless if you are in a long-term, committed, and monogamous relationship), then we will be your friend here to help you along the way." (But they cannot hold any leadership positions in the church while they are still struggling with being led by their flesh just as those struggling with adultery would not be allowed to hold leadership positions) I have no problem with this, but if this was what you meant you should have clarified it because I am sure a lot of people listening to you interpreted "we are a queer friendly church" the way below (B).

(B). By "queer friendly" you are tickling the ears of PRACTICING homosexuals so that they don't feel convicted (i.e. feel guilt, shame, or be anxious to repent for their homosexual acts) because "we are all sinners" and as you have said before, "it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict."  This is a huge problem if this is your motive, because you are enabling practicing homosexuals to continue in their idolatry by continuing to find their identity in their sexuality and be led by their flesh.  Additionally, by generalizing such a grievous sin to "we are all sinners" you diminish and confuse the responsibility of the sinner to take action/tackle some of their most damaging sins (to themselves and others).  It's hard to imagine what sin is more damaging (physically, mentally, and spiritually) to a homosexual than their sin of homosexuality.  I don't think you would treat HABITUAL/PRACTICING adulterers, with that same courtesy would you?  I don't think I'd ever hear you say, "We are an adulterer friendly church." And yet you offered that confusing courtesy to (practicing) homosexuals? Odd.

 How do you reconcile a message like that with 1 Corinthians 5:11-13?

"I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people. It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”

Lastly, I pray the Holy Spirit will show you how you are doing a disservice to your congregation and to God's kingdom. Please consider the following verse: 

"Your prophets courted you with sweet talk.
  They didn’t face you with your sin so that you could repent.
  Their sermons were all wishful thinking, deceptive illusions."--Lamentations 2:14 (The Message)

Your brother in Christ,

James

Is there any limiting principle in the way people might identify themselves, and if so, what is that limit or that principle? 

As the identity of a nation and culture becomes more obscure (through pluralism, which leads to relativism), the identity of the individuals within that nation and culture can become just as, or even more obscure. In a secular culture—where relativism is the prevailing philosophy and is considered the only absolute—any limiting principle in the way people identify themselves will be dissolved by relativism.  Dr. Ravi Zacharias explains it this way:

“Secularization leads to loss of shame, pluralization [which leads to relativism] leads to loss of reason, and privatization [i.e., your religious and moral convictions must be kept to yourself] leads to loss of meaning." 

Let’s see how this all works out with the issue of “gender identity.”

Secularization leads to loss of shame—today there is no shame in a man being a woman.

Pluralization leads to loss of reason—today there is nothing wrong or UNREASONABLE with a man being a woman.

Privatization (i.e., your religious and moral convictions must be kept to yourself) leads to loss of meaning—nobody should tell a man that (despite how he FEELS), his biological gender has a natural teleology (purpose) and therefore he shouldn’t try to be a woman.

Any limit proposed in a secular and relativistic society would be purely subjective.  As one person I debated with on this issue said, “New mental machinery and concepts are forged when they're really needed.”  Translation:  Removing fences, blurring lines, and redefining normal and abnormal are all employed to appease whatever group of people (no matter how confused, or ill) who shouts loudest, "WHAT ABOUT US!"



Our culture is in the process of removing two fences at the same time:  1) the fence around marriage, and 2) the gender fence called “common sense” that divided clearly and OBJECTIVELY gender IDENTITY between male and female.  This is being done to appease the “WHAT ABOUT US” crowds—homosexuals (who make up less than 3% of the U.S. population) and transgendered (who make up around 0.3% of the U.S. population).  Unfortunately, there will always be a new group screaming ‘what about us” and our culture and government seems more than willing to accommodate and recognize them when their shouts are loud enough.  I will expound on this more in the conclusion.

The fact is, the only way humans can be viewed in a way that has an objective essence, value, and teleology (purpose) that cannot be arbitrarily defined/changed/recognized by government is if the very essence of humanity is UNDERSTOOD AND ACKNOWLEDGED (by our government and the culture) to be grounded in something OBJECTIVE that transcends humans and is what we all have in common—regardless of age, ability, or appearance.  There is only one THING that fits this description and that is that all humans are made in the image of a transcendent Creator/Designer (i.e., God).  Our founders understood this and I will highlight the self-evident truth that grounds humanity’s essence below.

“WHO or WHAT determines which beings are human and which are not? What if government identifies some as "chattel?" Does that make them chattel? If we say, NO! GOVERNMENT IS WRONG!, then government is wrong according to...WHAT? WHY is government wrong when it labels people as "chattel?"  Is it something in the NATURE of those people that truly identifies what they are?”

The Christian/theist philosophers who framed our Constitution understood there was something unique to humans that gave them an essence wholly distinct from animals and chattel. 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  The Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that would utter a statement like that.  That is, this self-evident truth our founders acknowledged is that humans have transcendent and intrinsic value because we are made in the image of God (and is why we fumigate termites and not humans—no matter how little utility they might offer in return).  Did our PRACTICES of treating some like “chattel” always reflect this self-evident truth?  NO, but it is this self-evident truth that many referred to as why they opposed slavery.  Furthermore, the natural teleology of gender and sexuality would also follow this self-evident truth that we have a Creator/Designer.  Therefore, The U.S. government has the proper framework (from our founders) to determine the essence of humanity. 

But what about our culture?

 Sociologist Daniel Bell once said, “Culture is the effort to provide a coherent set of answers to the existential situations that confront all human beings in the passage of their lives.”

The insanity that surrounds us that gets more bizarre with each passing year is a result of our culture with no consistent and coherent set of answers to life’s most fundamental questions:

1.  Origin--Where did we come from?

2.  Meaning—What is our purpose?

3.  Morality—How can we tell right from wrong?

4.  Destiny—What happens when we die?

Matt Moore, a former practicing homosexual who has given his life to Christ, explained some of the insanity of our culture today:

“The message that our culture (not me, but the culture) puts forth is this:

•  A homosexual disposition is determined at/before birth and therefore it is something that is good and does not need to change.
• Gender is determined at/before birth, but it is something that should be changed if so desired.

•  A person didn’t choose their homosexual disposition; therefore God made them that way.
• A person didn’t choose their gender, but God didn’t make them that way if they don’t want to be that way.

•  Attempting to change one’s sexual disposition is harmful for a person because they’re going against the way they are designed.
• Attempting to change one’s gender is healthy for a person because they are correcting their mistaken design.

Basically, the world says that God doesn’t make mistakes when it comes to gay feelings, but He does make mistakes when it comes to gender.

Our culture’s belief system is all jacked up from beginning to end. Not only is there no consistency, but there is no real objective basis for their presumptions. The world’s belief system isn’t founded on what is really true or what is untrue, but on what it wants.  To put it plainly, the world says that homosexual feelings are God-ordained and unchangeable because they want them to be God-ordained and unchangeable; and they say physical gender is non-God-ordained and changeable because they want it to be non-God-ordained and changeable.”

Conclusion:  In a secular society that widely subscribes to relativism (where there are no coherent and consistent set of answers to the nature of our existence), there is simply no limiting principle in the way people identify themselves.  Some people, like the man pictured (who tried to make himself into a tiger and was known as "Stalking Cat"), do not identify as human; they identify as some other species (this is known as species dysphoria).  The only reason this group (also called “Furries”) has not been given the recognition others with identity disorders have been given is because their “WHAT ABOUT US” shouts have not been heard past the louder groups that are closer to the gay community.  As the gay community is continually catered to, their shouts are less frequent and quieter, so the shouts from other “WHAT ABOUT US” groups can be heard.  With each new loudest “WHAT ABOUT US” crowd comes a new letter to be added to the community—one site has the acronym up to 12 symbols now (LGBTQQIP2SAA).    For a community that has erased the lines of sexuality, gender, and has been on record trying to erase age of consent lines, can you really see any reason why they wouldn’t be willing to erase species lines and add an “F” (for "Furry") to their acronym of “social justice?”

“Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask yourself the question, ‘Why was it put there in the first place?'"--G.K. Chesterton

Our churches have been silent on social issues for the sake of remaining relevant in a godless culture.  These good intentions have only perpetuated the decadence we see in our society, as more and more people seek in vain to find their identity in created things (a different gender, a different form of sexuality, a different species, etc.) rather than find their true identity in THE Creator and Redeemer.  


“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”-- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

Dear Dr. Brown, 

I come to you as a brother in Christ, and one of your biggest defenders.  I have defended you in the comments below your Charisma articles from believers who continually slander you for being bold in your quest for sharing the truth about the dangers of homosexuality.  So please understand I come as a friend (trying to sharpen iron), not as a foe.

In one Facebook post you wrote, “I am committed to boldly proclaiming Jesus even if it means death.  I'm not committed to NEEDLESSLY offending those I want to reach."  Your comment reiterates the sentiments from your recent article on the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas:  “And so, while I defend Geller’s right to hold the contest and, to repeat, while I commend her courage and boldness, I personally believe it is an UNNECESSARY provocation of Muslims…”  I emphasized NEEDLESSLY and UNNECESSARY because that is the crux of my disagreement with your comments.   You seem to believe the offense was needless while Pamela Geller, I, and many others believe that it was needed.  I will get to why I believe it is needed and not needless later, but first, have you considered your posts and pictures that shed light on the brutality committed in the name of Islam?  You have also provided Quranic verses that show how Islam’s holy book justifies these acts.  Don’t think I am condemning these posts.  I cheer them on because they reflect the truth—a truth many are ignorant of and therefore NEED to be informed on.  But you do realize these posts probably offend Muslims; therefore, some Islamapologists or even some Christians could just as easily point to your posts and say, “while I defend Dr. Brown’s right to post on Facebook, while I commend his courage and boldness, I personally believe it is an UNNECESSARY provocation of Muslims.”  In fact you know from experience that your posts offend Muslims because they have complained to Facebook and have had your page shut down.

But I am guessing that you post these not with the INTENTION of antagonizing Muslims, but with the INTENT of informing/raising awareness to a spiritual and even physical danger that cloaks itself in a religion called “Islam.”   And maybe that is where you are drawing a distinction between you and Pam Gellar—INTENT.  Your intent is to inform/raise awareness and you believe Pam’s intent is to antagonize. But if that is the case, the assumption that Geller’s intent is to antagonize is nothing more than that—an assumption.  It is based on nothing that she has said explicitly or implicitly.  When asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper, “What was the purpose of holding an event that specifically focused on drawing Muhammad?”  Geller responded, “Well that’s where the war on free speech is coming from…” (2:45 mark below) 

If we are to take Geller at her word, it is clear that her intent is to inform/raise awareness of the threat Islam poses to our freedom of speech.  So why are so many so quick to dismiss the sincerity of her words?  You of all people certainly know what it’s like to be accused of malicious INTENT.   You know how it feels to be striving for one thing while being accused of some ulterior motive.  In your case, your love and compassion for the gay community (by raising awareness of the dangers of homosexuality) is accused as “hate” by those who are offended by your methods.  In Pam Geller’s case, her love for our freedoms (speech and other liberties that are under attack now and would be eliminated under Sharia adhering Islamists) and her methods of raising awareness to what threatens our freedoms (Islam), is deemed “hate speech”, Islamophobic, and even NEEDLESS provocation. 

So now the question comes down to whether her methods of raising awareness are “needless.”  Is there any other way she can raise awareness of this threat (to the level she did) without going to the level of offense that she did?  I don’t think so.  She can post all she wants on her own Facebook, and Twitter accounts about the threats of Islam (like many Americans like you are doing), but it took an event like that to show how disproportionate, extreme, and belligerent reactions from Islamists can be to things that offend them.   This event also showed that the dangers of Islam are not just a threat and a problem in the Middle East and Europe; despite what many of our politicians keep trying to tell us, Islam is a very real and growing threat here at home.  In short, her event drew a reaction that affirmed what she has been claiming:  “Islam is a threat to our liberty!”  

Too many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are naïve to Islam and the threat it poses to the West.   What this event showed is that Islam is not compatible with The Constitution.  Unfortunately, the media (including our side) dropped the ball when they followed this rabbit trail of, "Should we use the First Amendment to 'poke Islam in the eye?'" That is a secondary issue. The primary issue and what the national conversation should have been (following this extreme reaction from Islamists) was, "Does this 'religion' really advocate violence toward those who simply draw something (i.e. exercise their First Amendment right)?  What else cannot be said about their prophet that may incite a violent response?  How does Constitutional protection for a 'religion' work when a religion cannot tolerate the freedoms of The Constitution?  What gives?  The Constitution or the so-called 'religion' that is the antithesis of The Constitution?

What about our witness?  I agree with you that we don’t want to put a stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited (2 Corinthians 6:3).  However, a ministry will not be effective AT ALL if you are dead or will be dead because of your ministry.  There is a time for witnessing, but there is also a time to defend liberty.  Our generations have been spoiled by living in a time of immense liberty.  We take it for granted like it will always be here, but I agree with the words of Ronald Reagan:  “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” 

And maybe this is where you and I disagree.  Perhaps you don’t see the threat from Islam—via the Trojan Horse of political correctness—like I do.  But if you don’t, I’m curious why you have as many posts as you do exposing “radical Islam.”  And now we come to the term “radical Islam.”  It is worth noting the mother of one of the Muslim shooters said of her son, “Yes, he was a practicing Muslim, but not in an extreme sense.”  In other words, her son was not a “radical.”  He was just a devout Muslim.  While I appreciate you (and others) raising awareness of the dangers of "radical Islam" in America and the West, it seems as long as we keep inserting the word "radical" in with the threat itself (ISLAM) we are giving the impression that those committing these acts of terror are actually not followers of Muhammad, but just a bunch of crazies taking the Quran out of context. But that is not what we see when we investigate the teachings of Muhammad in the Quran and the Hadith. What we find is that any Muslim waging war on the infidel (through physical violence or any means necessary) for the advancement of Sharia Law and submission to Allah is actually following the teachings of Muhammad.   The more we use the term "radical" in the same sentence as what threatens us, the more we lend credence to those who say they stopped using the term "Muslim" altogether when describing the terrorists because they (the terrorists) are no more Muslim than they (the liberals) are. That was a paraphrase from Howard Dean. 

When we were at war with the British, we were at war with the British (not "radical" British), when we were at war with the Nazis, we were at war with the Nazis (not "radical" Nazis), when we were at war with the communists, we were at war with the communists (not "radical" communists). We are at war today with Islam (not "radical Islam" and not with "Muslims" that subscribe to some watered-down western version of Islam--that is the million dollar distinction).
That is, we are at war with ISLAM proper. We are at war with the version that seeks Sharia Law and submission to Allah throughout the world (by any means necessary, including jihadist terrorism). I'm sorry to say, that is not "radical" Islam; that IS ISLAM!

While Islam is at war with us, many of our fellow Americans don’t realize this.  Additionally, many Christians today act as if we should merely pray for Islamists, who hate us, want to impose Sharia Law on us, or want us dead. My response to them is: would you also merely just ask Christian Americans to "pray for the Nazis" in WWII? What about someone who breaks into your home to rape and kill your family? Would you just pray for them as well? As Christians, we should pray for our enemies but we also need to use common sense and defend our lives and liberty.  This war is not just a physical war; it is an ideological war.  Ironically, the brunt of resistance/conflict we face in the ideological war with Islam is not with Islamists, but rather with many in the West who are committed to defending Islam as a religion of peace.  We are fighting against the media, our universities, and politicians (who have already begun acquiescing to the Sharia) in this ideological war.  Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in the battle of ideas, and the draw Muhammad event provided a rhetorical bomb for us in this ideological war.  Whenever someone repeats the lie, “Islam is a religion of peace” we can easily respond, “unless someone draws a cartoon of Muhammad.”  Did we need this event to be able to say that? No, but it was needed to give this rhetoric the relevance, freshness, poignancy and power that it didn’t quite have before.   

In closing, I pray you consider your own experience of being accused of “hate” or of having malicious intent like Pam is today.  Pam Geller is showing tremendous courage in what she is doing for freedom’s sake (our freedom’s sake).   Perhaps we should be more careful with what we claim is needless, lest our own words and methods end up being what we are claiming the words and methods of others are--needless.   

Your brother in Christ,

James Johnson