Consider this my after-action report on the recent gay pride event in Bonner Ferry.
Let’s start with a few facts.
Initial reports that 13 churches in town were coming together to host the counter event at the county fairgrounds were untrue. The actual number that I could confirm was more like three or four. Organizers—members of the local Bushnell clan—has reportedly planned for up to 1,000 people to show up. FYI that is almost half the population of the city. In reality, the reports that I received were that attendance was around 300.
Black Pearl Theater
Attendance at the gay pride event, per my estimates were as follows: about 20 on Friday night and Saturday, the daytime number was on the order of fifty to sixty. I was not present for the Saturday evening, adults only event.
Friday night, note police cars on left.
Saturday was all about the children. They brought in a traveling roadshow of circus freaks from Washington State (Spokane and neighboring areas).
Children’s groomer and friends
By circus freaks I mean drag queens and such that were grooming children to accept and participate in the deviant lifestyles that these folks embrace. On a Facebook post, I described seeing this as witnessing parents bring their children before Molech and then making them walk through the fire.
The protesters, A.K.A. our guys, were few in number and many were from outside the area. On Friday night, I would say we had eight to ten and Saturday we were able to field twelve to fourteen. Not everybody was there simultaneously.
I would describe our side as fractured in a myriad of ways.
Friday night: I showed up to hand out flyers (Bible tracts), another guy was giving out bottled water to all takers (he also donated food to the gay pride people earlier in the day as he wanted to be immunized of being called “hateful”), about five guys from another town showed up with large signs which looked like Romans on a campaign march, another guy brought a wireless mike so he could “street preach”, and a few others mostly stood around and watched.
Friday night visit with local PD.
Saturday: I was there with my flyers, another group of four was talking amongst themselves and then would read Bible passages out loud, another group of young men were actively talking to a few women attending the event (they later pulled out hymnals and sang a few songs), another guy brought a boom box type PA system to preach, the street preacher from the previous day attended the picnic and then was planning to preach during the evening session, and a few other folks also were of the crowd.
This being north Idaho, anytime conservatives gather, spies attempt to infiltrate groups. One person was pointed out to me by one of the groups in attendance as such a person. I agree that he didn’t fit in; however, whether he was from law enforcement, a plant from the rainbow mafia, or just weird I was not sure. He did his best to interact with each and every one there to protest.
Another divide was whether protesters should be confronting everyone like the preaching folks or just be passive and seek opportunities to strike up a conversation with attendees.
Street Preacher Bobby
A big divide was obvious in terms of messaging and communication. The big failure by Christians was invoking “Jesus” and “love” in the same paragraph. Many gay folks gleefully were proclaiming that Jesus loved them and thus were perplexed as to why we were there and opposing them. Such talk derailed the gospel “sharing” that was attempted by Christians protesting at the event. When your idea of the gospel is “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” and the person that you are sharing with agrees, it knocks the wheel off the Campus Crusade method of evangelism. This tactic by the gay folks, knocked Christians off offense and put them on defense with no response.
This brings to mind one of Walter Martin’s early chapters in Kingdom of the Cults where he spends a whole chapter on vocabulary and defining terms. When you don’t take the time to do that, you talk past each other and never communicate the Gospel to others.
Local democrat party sign decorated with flags
The difference of course is that the gay folks claim that God accepts them without any need to repent. It echoes Paul in the book of Romans when he rhetorically asks if we should sin more so grace may abound.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6: 1-2
Paul goes on to say you cannot sin and serve God simultaneously. Living to sin (lust) leads to eternal damnation not everlasting life.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. (v 12)
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (v 22-23)
We need some training and planning before attempting this again. Too bad the professional clergy won’t touch this issue. As proven with Covid, they would rather shelter in place. As one group called our town’s clergy, “Hirelings, not shepherds.”
Lastly, what do we do with the folks that sat the whole thing out? Clearly, they are part of the problem too.
Perhaps, when dealing with defining “love” we might want to ask, “Which Jesus are we talking about?”
Somehow agreeing with to Doobie Brother that “Jesus is just alright with me” may be part of the problem.
This is another book recommended by Andrew Torba in the back of Christian Nationalism. The book is five chapters long and weighs in at about 150 pages. It was published in 2003. My recollection is that the guys at Berean Church in Sandpoint quoted one sentence from the book out of context and then threw Leithart under the bus as a heretic.
Review:
This book is like CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity in that it has lots of thought-provoking stuff and is trying to get readers to think outside of established categories about the Christian faith.
I cannot hope to “convince” readers or “prove” anything here, since I have certainly not provided enough argument or evidence to compel agreement. I hope instead to hint at, gesture toward, trace, or sketch what may be a fresh approach to the (mainly ecclesiological) issues I discuss, more to change readers’ angle of vision than persuade. (page 7).
Leithart is dissatisfied with the self-imposed limits that we as believers have allowed the secular world to impose on us. He feels strongly that we are all too willing to allow our faith to be boxed-in as a private affair between us and God and that we generally are unwilling to engage the world around us.
The Bible gives no hint that a Christian “belief system” might be isolated from the life of the Church, subjected to a scientific or logical analysis, and have its truth compared with competing “belief systems.” (page 14).
Though it has roots in the patristic period, Christianity in its more developed form is the Church’s adjustment of the gospel to modernity, and the Church’s consequent acceptance of the world’s definition of who we are and what we should be up to. Christianity is biblical religion disemboweled and emasculated by (voluntary) intellectualization and/or privatization. (page 17).
He places Christianity in one corner and in the other is the Church. The Church is both an assembly of believers (ecclesia) and a government (polis). The Church is a multi-language nation.
My complaint is more fundamental: we have accepted our liberal opponent’s account of who we are and no longer see that the gospel an is inherently political announcement, nor that the Church is an inherently political community. (page 38).
Leithart would find the notion of “me and Jesus is a majority” as laughable. The Church gives a believer purpose and meaning within a community.
Leithart argues that saving faith in Christ is not like “adding Jesus to my life” but is a completed surrender of my life and a completed adoption of Christ’s.
Conversion does not simply install a new “religious” program over the existing operating system. It installs a new operating system. (page 16).
Leithart concludes his book with ideas such as these:
Suppose the king is a liberal who tries to police the boundaries of the Church, telling the Church where it can and cannot speak, what it can and cannot do. In that case too, a clash is inevitable and, again, kings have a herd time winning such battles. …
On the other hand, if the Church appears preaching Christianity, the king is entirely capable of stealing the rhetoric and story and ideas of the Church to buttress his power. … Or, political powers may simply force Christianity into the private sphere—shoving ideas back into the brain and Christianity back into churches. Churches in the grip of Christianity will hardly blink when the liberal king tells them that that have to confine themselves to thinking pious thoughts. (page 149).
Application
Folks, this was written in 2003 but sounds like a perfect description of the total failure of the clergy in all denominations when confronted in 2020 with the Covid 19 order to shutdown all church worship and scatter the flocks of Christ. We, as believers, accepted the liberal lie that the Church was “non-essential” to our way of life and virtually ever minister, not only in the United States, but all of the West, complied without question. I can number all the churches in the United States that did not shutdown during Covid on one hand and still have fingers left. This is a huge indictment of the moral failure of modern churches.
The failure of churches during Covid is exactly the point Leithart is trying to make with this book. We have abandoned Christendom and replaced it with a pious, personal, and ineffective philosophy called “Christianity.”
The same moral failure lamented by Leithart will be played out next weekend when our community hosts its first gay pride event. Instead of protesting, local churches numbering as many as 13 congregations, will be holding a picnic at the fairgrounds as a “family friendly” alternative. They are expecting a crowd of 1,000 people at the event.
Except for one person that calls himself a street evangelist, nobody plans to be at the event to share Christ with these folks. I specifically asked my church leadership in the loudest voice that I could, why do we refuse to share Christ with these people? I said that we need more people in front of the venue protesting than they have attending it. Essentially, I was told that homosexuals are not “the elect” and that they should be ignored. Folks, if you ignore cancer, does it simply go away or spread? I submit to you that sin is a cancer, and it will spread like wildfire if not halted in its progress. To this end, I bought 100 tracts to hand-out at the event, and I will not be participating at the picnic.
Leithart’s book is worth a look. I suggest having multicolored highlighters and going through it two or three times to really get a feel for his arguments. This book is asking you to think outside your preconceived categories and view faith in Christ in terms of the early church not categories given us by the pagans that gave us the Enlightenment and modernity.
Petra was in the area last Friday night and I decided to go see them. They last toured about ten years ago.2024 is their fiftieth anniversary. Their first album was released in 1974. I have a copy of the LP and the CD.
Their concert was across the border in Creston, Canada. Since moving to north Idaho a year ago, I have never driven into Canada. I’m the only one in the family with a valid passport, but since my wife is out of town, so I decided to go.
Two weeks ago, I bought a VIP pass for $75 (Canadian). The pass was for an event starting at 5 PM. We were given a poster to get autographed and also allowed to get autographs on another item.
The following is a recap of my adventures that day.
I got up just before 7 and did my morning chores. My wife and I were on the road at 8 AM. At 10 AM we did our Costco run in Coeur d’Alene. We tried to do a Costco run the previous Friday but were not allowed into the building because somebody in the area decided to try moving a power pole with their car. They succeeded in knocking out power to parts of the town including Costco. Oh, inside the building they have a whole section of generators for sale but whatever.
We then went to Rathdrum for lunch at a dive called Nadine’s. They have a salad that faintly resembles the Yucatan salad from Dos Coyotes. Then I dropped my wife at the airport in Spokane and by 1 PM I was returning home to walk the dog and then headed to the concert. In preparation to go to the concert I got my passport and my copy of the first Petra LP. Yep, a vintage 1974 album titled “Petra.”
Near my house, we have two border crossings: Porthill and Eastport. The Porthill crossing is closer but closes at 7 PM. It used to be open longer but since Covid the hours have been shortened. I crossed at Porthill. It was easier than I thought. I was asked if I had any firearms or ammo. I replied, “No.” I was asked about my business and how long I would be staying. I told the man that I was going to a concert. He replied, “Oh, you’re going to see Petra?” I replied, “Yes.” I was then allowed into Canada.
Please understand that I was somewhat apprehensive to do this because all my other trips to Canada were to Victoria. In Victoria they drive on the wrong side of the road just like in England. Thankfully this part of British Columbia is like driving in the US except they use the evil metric system.
Creston is a small town of a few thousand people. I was very surprised that they landed a Petra concert. Just before the venue, I found a Dairy Queen, likely the only fast-food joint in town, and ordered a chicken sandwich. I then arrived at the community center and ate most of my dinner in the car. It was a multi-use facility.
The VIP event started about 5:15. The event was really laid-back. I told them that I was there for the VIP Petra event, and they let me in. The people running the VIP portion of the event had no list of names as to who had paid for the VIP pass, they just took me at my word and let me in the room.
Shortly after I got my pass, the band members, five in all, entered the room and were seated at one end. The band members were never introduced by name.
Bob Hartman (middle) John Schlitt to his right
It turns out that only one guy was an original member of the band. What years the others joined was never discussed. A question-and-answer period was held first. Most of the time was spent recounting the story of how John Schlitt came to replace Greg X Voltz as lead singer of the band. The story was not told by John, but the only remaining guy from the original band, Bob Hartman.
John was lead singer for a 1970’s rock band called “Head East.”
John got caught up in the rock n’ roll lifestyle and got so messed up on drugs that they fired him from the band. He hit bottom and “got saved” as they say in Evangelical circles. He then finished college and did geology and mining stuff in Utah for a few years. He thought he was done with music until Petra happened. The whole answer was about 20 minutes long, so I really am giving you the thumbnail version.
Oh, the one question that was deflected concerned whether there would be a live album recorded on this tour. The band equivocated on this idea. Folks, based on what I’ve been seeing, the live album will be recorded in Oklahoma City on July 26th.
Following the Q & A session, the autograph portion began. The band members signed whatever was presented to them. Besides my original Petra LP, there were backpacks, ball caps, and CD covers. I was surprised that I was the only one with an LP. The Petra LPs are being re-released along with remastered CDs by Boone’s Overstock and Girder Music.
As people were getting autographs, they had a person assigned to take photos of each person or group going through the line, so you got a personalized photo with the band. As of this writing, the photos are not on Facebook yet.
At the conclusion of the VIP event, I went out to my car and put my treasures in the car. I then went into the concert venue. Being that I’m in Canada, would it surprise you that the venue was on the floor of the local hockey rink.
The one question I almost asked was concerning the song, “God Gave Rock N’ Roll to You.” Per Wikipedia, it was originally done by Argent in 1971. Petra changed some lyrics and did it in 1977 and again in 1984. KISS did their own variation of it in 1991 for the movie Bill and Ted’s Bogus Adventure.
Having some time to kill, I looked at the merchandise for sale and Petra had zero music for sale: only shirts. I learned from the guy at the table that only merchandise manufactured in Canada was allowed to be sold at the concert. Also, they could not accept any form of payment except cash or PayPal. Even with international data roaming activated on my phone, I was unable to download the PayPal app. It’s probably been at least ten years since I tried using PayPal for any type of transaction, so I don’t even know if I still have an account with them. NAFTA be damned, international commerce is a pain in the rear.
The warm-up band came on stage about 7 PM. They were never introduced. I researched their name, it was “Revival.”
The band performed about seven songs. Their last song was a cover of “Jesus Freak.” Per Wikipedia, the song was originally done by DC Talk. I have heard it before and have a cover of it done by Larry Norman.
Revival
People say I’m strange, does it make me a stranger
Revival finished their set about 7:40. It was then announced that there would be break and Petra would take the stage at 8 PM.
Sure enough, Petra took the stage at 8 PM and played for an hour and a half. Some of the folks really got into it, singing and dancing, and occasionally clapping to the music. Other folks watched with less visible enthusiasm. I would say that the crowd was about four to five hundred people and most of the audience was between 40 to 60 years old.
The overall playlist was much like Petra’s Farewell CD with some other songs added. Also, the rock and acoustic medleys were longer. John Schlitt’s vocals were remarkable good; especially since the guy is probably in his seventies. He looks like an older version of Christopher Lloyd’s “Doc Brown” from Back to the Future.
Christopher Lloyd “Doc Brown”
Bob Hartman’s guitar solo was much the same as Farewell.
As I said previously, the band was never introduced but I think the other band members are:
Greg Bailey – Bass, cello, backing vocal
Cristian Borneo – Drums
John Lawry – Keyboards, keytar, backing vocal
Attached are some photos of the concert.
Following the concert, I hit the road and went to the other border crossing at Eastport. I must say that it was odd driving down unfamiliar mountain roads at nighttime with the speedometer at 100. After about 40 minutes, I finally arrived at the crossing back into the United States.
I was instructed to turn off my engine and then was hit with a barrage of questions. As best as I can remember they included the following:
Was there anyone else in my car?
Did I have over $10,000 with me?
Did I have alcohol or tobacco products?
Did I have any fresh fruit or vegetables?
Where was I coming from?
Where was I going?
I felt really unwelcome to be entering the US. Perhaps I should have answered in Spanish, it might have been quicker to be allowed into the country. It might be that I was the only person in a while the guy had a chance to talk with, I don’t know but he finally let me go. I walked in the door about 11 PM.
Now I just need to find a few frames for my autographed stuff.
Thanks to the Berean Church in Sandpoint Idaho and Politically Active Christians Political Action Committee (PAC PAC), I have had to start reading a few books to refute their claims about Christian Nationalism not being Christian. In their two-hour presentation they mention but never quote Andrew Torba and his running mate, Rev. Andrew Isker. The only thing they reference in their presentation are three books in the Recommended Reading list at the back of Torba’s book, Christian Nationalism.
Back when I was a Roman Catholic, I learned that there are sins of commission and sins of omission. Berean purposely commits the second in their presentation. They mention that Torba and Isker recommend a book on Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe but omit the part that the book is “forthcoming”. This implies that Torba and Isker are aware the book is in the publishing pipeline, but “forthcoming” says to me that they haven’t seen it in its final form. Looks like I get to spend some money at Cannon Press in the next few weeks so I can pick up three or four more books on the issue. Like I really need more books in my reading que. (I’m reading my fourth book this week which just happens to be by Gary DeMar and is not related to the present topic.).
Berean also omits a book by Gary DeMar and skips most other people on the Recommended Reading list. I know for a fact that Gary DeMar does not like the label of “Christian Nationalist”, but he says that he understands what some people are trying to say by calling themselves that. He thinks it is the wrong label to use. This fact is also absent from the Berean presentation. You would think that when Torba and Isker recommending a book by a guy that doesn’t like the label “Christian Nationalist” that fact would be a relevant point in their presentation.
The full title of the book by Torba and Isker is Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide to Taking Dominion & Discipling Nations.
Christian Nationalism is a movement of rebuilding, reformation and revival. We are not trying to overthrow the existing state or even necessarily earn positions in the highest levels of power. We don’t need to because we are playing the long game and are busy building things that matter. … So that is exactly what we are building: a parallel Christian Society.
A glaring omission in the Berean presentation is that they never deal with the issue of Dominion. Berean never cites any Bible verses on what they think a Christian’s role should be in our culture. They only say that Christian Nationalists are wrong but offer nothing in its place. As Gary North used to say, “You can’t beat something with nothing” but at the end of the day, that’s all they offer. Defeat and retreat are not a winning strategy or a biblical one either.
Torba’s Christian Nationalism is essentially an optimistic and post-millennial view of history that is offered as an antidote to the poison of premillennial dispensational defeatist theology that permeates most churches in the West. The bottom line is that Jesus isn’t coming back for a few thousand more years so given that, what legacy do you plan to leave for the next few generations. Torba says we should be planning at least seven generations into the future. Play the long game and Christians will transform society. We need to “take some turf for Jesus” as Gary S Paxton used to sing.
One of the most important tasks for the Christian Nationalist is overcoming the idea that the world is going to end very soon. The Pilgrims and other settlers who came to found a new Christian nation were not doing so because they expected the world to end any minute now. They did so because they were aware of the promises that God has made in His Word, that:
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. (Psalm 22: 27-28.)
And that:
“the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab. 2:14.)
Torba also advocates for a variation of the strategy found in one of my all-time favorite books, “How the Irish Saved Civilization.”
Create parallel economic structures that showcase the difference between Christian culture and “the world”. Saint Patrick did this when he wished to convert a city. He set up a Christian community next to the city he wished to convert to show unbelievers that the followers of Christ had a better way to do things. Torba says that the current world system will collapse, and Christians need to be ready to step-in and help rebuild society after that happens.
The biggest complaint I have is that Torba doesn’t adequately footnote his books. There is no index of Scripture quotations, no index of topics, no index of people mentioned, and few if any citations of people quoted in his books.
For example, in Christian Nationalism, Torba quotes David Chilton several times but never says where the quotes are from. I was a friend of David’s and I recognize the quotes but please don’t ask me which book or lecture is being quoted.
All heathen cultures have been statist and tyrannical, for a people who reject God will surrender themselves and their property to a dictator. (I Sam 8: 7-20.) — David Chilton
Only one chapter in the book has any footnotes at all and that is the last chapter documenting that the original colonies were all founded as Christian outposts (colonies or nations) sanctioned by the British and under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Torba claims to be taking the Great Commission of Jesus literally and wanting to disciple all nations.
There is an abundance of biblical evidence for Christ’s present reign over heaven and earth. And the strongest is in the Great Commission (Matt 28: 18): “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’ Jesus is reigning already. He doesn’t have some authority over this world, He has all of it.
This is mainstream Christian theology. Sadly, many Christians just don’t believe in it these days; hence the mess we are in. Torba also does his best to make the push for Christian Nationalism open to Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. You might say his slogan is, “If Jesus is your Lord, welcome on board.”
The most controversial chapter in the book is his refutation of the phrase “Judeo-Christian.” The “Judeo” is not based on the Old Testament but on a rejection of Jesus as Messiah and thus incompatible with Christianity. His comments are spot-on concerning this issue.
Talmudic Judaism is a new religion made up by those who rejected Jesus Christ. It is not the precursor to Christianity; it postdates it. By using the term [Judeo-Chirstian] we are reinforcing the idea that their religion is just like ours except they don’t believe in Jesus yet, when in reality it is a new religion formed out of the total rejection of the Son of God.
Oh, I got my copy of the book from Amazon. It was one of those print on demand books and my hard cover copy is 70 pages long. Yes, I’d recommend this book.
Note: in the ten minutes (or less) that it takes you to read this, I saved you from wasting an additional two hours of your life watching the video that I reviewed. My notes were made as I watched this video, so they are jumpy.
Here in north Idaho, there is a church that is preaching against Christian Nationalism. This is not too remarkable to me since many claiming the name of Christ are not really Christians, but this instance is different. Why? Because this congregation controls a political action committee. This PAC has been a tool wielded against conservative Christian candidates. Since they have interjected themselves into the public square, I had decided to critique their claims.
Before I begin, I have a few comments.
First, there is no such thing as Christian Nationalism. This term is a strawman constructed by the Left to hammer conservatives and Christians. There is no leader of Christian Nationalism because there are no dues, membership, or anything else. It’s just a label that Liberals use to pigeonhole folks that they don’t like. Christian Nationalism is a category of people that the Left wish to dismiss in much the same way as dog excrement on the bottom of their designer shoes.
That being said, many conservatives and Christians have decided to “own” the label. For those ignorant in history or who spent too much time in public school, the name “Christian” was coined by the opponents of Jesus as a way to insult and belittle His followers. Instead of fighting the label, the Church decided to own it and thus were OK to be called something intended as an insult.
Anyone can claim to be a Christian Nationalist or called that by anyone that wishes to belittle them or be dismissive of their views of a conservative. The term itself has little to no context or content. However, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?
Lastly, some folks call themselves Christian Nationalists just to get a rise from the Left and folks at places like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League.
Some Christians don’t like the label because it is an inaccurate summary of their beliefs.
Anyway, The Berean Church in Sandpoint Idaho has managed to construct a two-hour presentation on the evils of Christian Nationalism. What follows will be a few comments on their presentation. The video is bookmarked in two locations.
The presentation is given by three individuals. Parts I and IV are by a black gentleman that is not identified, the next portion is given by the pastor, Michael Kohl, and a third part is by another fellow. Parts of the audio are faint and hard to understand. The video was posted to YouTube on Jan 19, 2024.
Kohl graduated for Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia which is Presbyterian and also attended the Reformed Episcopal Seminary (Philadelphia). He was in the Presbyterian Church In America (PCA) a somewhat liberal Presbyterian denomination, and has also worked in Brethren and independent Churches. The church’s statement of faith is the Five Protestant Solas with no elaboration.
Part I
This presentation begins with a PowerPoint slide Understanding the backdrop.
The four bullet points which are explained in more detail later are:
What is the term Christian Nationalism?
Who are the thought leaders of modern Christian Nationalism?
Mapping out the Christian Nationalism operation
Discovering how it matters to Idaho
First up is a video clip which is a promo for Rob Reiner’s movie attacking Christianity, God and Country. By-the-way, this turkey really bombed at the box office so don’t feel bad if you never saw it. Oh, Reiner hates Christians and always has.
My Comment on God and Country
The Hollywood reporter says of the film:
And, as the film points out in exhaustive detail, Christian Nationalism is very much a political, rather than religious, movement. The movement posits that America is a Christian nation and that the founders intended it as such. It seeks to roll back feminism, LBGTQ rights and abortion, and to either introduce Christianity to public schools or substitute them with private Christian schools funded by vouchers.
Any rational Christian believes all the things lamented by the Hollywood Reporter.
Back to the presentation
The presenter then critiques the Reiner promo and then steers people to Wikipedia for a definition of Christian Nationalism. He says he doesn’t like Liberals critiquing Christian Nationalism but then uses them as a source to do so. This is circular reasoning. He then keys on the names Andrew Torba and Nick Fuentes because they are mentioned by Wikipedia.
First up is a critique of Nick Fuentes. The clip shown is Fuentes talking of tearing down inclusive forces and kicking the Republican Party in the butt. I can tell you what’s probably coming next because Nick mentioned the word “white” and that is the racism card. In the context of DEI, Nick is right to say white people, and doubly so if they’re male, get screwed by the Democrat quota system.
I resumed the clip and Fuentes says he wants to drag the Republican Party back inside the doors of the church. FYI in the early years of the Republican Party, the Republican Party was called the Episcopal Church at prayer. The anti-slavery movement was largely a Christian one and was instrumental in the foundation of the Republican Party.
Then the presenter goes to Vincent James Foxx. Online, he goes by Vincent James. Vincent is a Republican and a self-identified Roman Catholic.
My comments on Vincent James
Vincent spends most of his podcasts talking against illegal immigration, discrimination against white people—a rection or pushback to those pushing DEI—and he points out the part played by prominent Jewish people in promoting the tearing-down of our institutions. He is not anti-Semitic, but against Jewish people born in America that have more allegiance to Israel than America. He makes it clear—if you listen—that he doesn’t hate Jews as a group be disagrees with wealthy Jewish people that teardown others to get special advantages for themselves and their allies. Rarely does he talk of Christianity except as it is affected by things like the recently adopted federal bill which gives special protections against anti-Semitic speech. This bill adopts language defining anti-Semitism which was written by a Jewish special interest group. It prohibits speaking against Zionism and makes the biblical account of Jesus’ crucifixion illegal. Yet, it got the full support of Zionist Christians but makes essential parts of the Gospel illegal to say. I think we will have more to say about Dispensational, premillennial theology before this presentation is concluded but we will see.
Back to the presentation.
The presenter plays a clip of Vincent being sarcastic and over the top talking about Christian Nationalism rolling back liberal social policy. Oh, but the presenter doesn’t really acknowledge that James is being sarcastic but takes him literally which in reality is taking him out of context. Folks, you don’t get thousands of followers online without some showmanship in your presentation. Vincent James has about 70 thousand followers on his Bitchute channel. He is on Rumble and several other places as well.
After a quick clip of James, the presenter goes on to some guy named Dave Reily. Dave Reily was recently hired by the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF). IFF is not a part of Christian Nationalism they lean libertarian, so I don’t know why it matters.
Somehow some of these guys are Facebook friends or something like that or they reposted a meme that someone put online so now they are all part of some great conspiracy. This is really a stretch.
Switching gears slightly we then go to Andrew Torba of the website Gab. Gab is a site dedicated to free speech. It is intended to be a safe haven for Christians and other that don’t wish to be censored by BIG Tech. Vincent James has a page on Gab which is where I first come across him. Torba wrote a book on Christian Nationalism that sounds like mash-up of parts of How the Irish Saved Civilization and Christian Reconstruction.
In this book, Torba has a recommended reading section. The presenter cherry picks three guys, Doug Wilson and two of his fellow travelers in Moscow Idaho. Please note that he ignores everyone else on the list.
My Comments on Berean’s Treatment of Andrew Torba
This entire presentation of over two hours never once quotes from Andrew Torba or his book on Christian Nationalism. Nor does it quote from anyone else writing on the topic. I suspect because Torba is repackaging Theonomy and Christian Reconstruction, whereas Stephen Wolfe’s book is on political theory. Political Theory is what should be but normally omits how to get there. The reader is left with the challenge of how to implement the ideas presented.
Back to the presentation
Also, please note that we have crossed the line from Roman Catholic to Protestant people. Torba, Wilson, and others have a much more biblical and higher view of Scripture and how it should be applied to public policy than Vincent James and others.
Wilson then gets attacked by the presenter for one line in one book that Wilson wrote. Folks Wilson has written hundreds of books, articles, and other documents. Look, He is a prolific writer. I know that Wilson has many supporters and detractors but to dismiss him outright on the basis of one sentence is sloppy and disingenuous.
Oh, here is the offending statement.
But breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works.
Whether this is related to James and the faith and works debate is not stated since we are denied context for the quotation.
Then the presenter goes after Peter Leithart for this quote which is never put into context.
Salvation must take a social form, and the Church is that social form of salvation, the community that already (though imperfectly) has become the human race as God created it to be, the human race that is becoming what God intends it to be. The Church is neither a reservoir of grace nor an external support for the Christian life. The Church is salvation.
This sounds like a variation of St. Cyprian, “No one can have God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother.”
Whatever larger point Leithart is making is never given. As Walter Martin famously said, “A text without a context, is a pretext, usually for error.”
On the basis of this quote, the presenter expects us to dismiss Leithart too.
Stephen Wolfe wrote “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” Many of their PowerPoint slides have the first name spelled a “Steven” not “Stephen.”
Drum roll, and the single pull quote from his book is:
I am not calling for a monarchial regime over every civil polity, and certainly not an autocracy, though I envision a measured and theocratic Caesarism—the prince as world-shaker for our time, who brings a Christian people to self-consciousness and who, in his rise, restores their will for good.
Again, this quote is presented without context. I can think of several possible and contradictory understandings of this quote but without context, we don’t know what the point of it really is. However, it really begs the question as to whether civil government should be based on God’s law or men’s. Ultimately these are the only two possibilities.
Wow. Surprise. We actually get a second quote from Wolfe. Presented again without context or elaboration.
Many claims in the book will worry many American conservative Christians. I’ve said that political governments can suppress false religion, establish a church, even require people to attend church. I also wrote about a ‘Christian prince,’ which is not the sort of political title one would find in America. I will not walk back those claims.
The presenter expects us to be shocked at the quote but should we really? First, we have no context for the above statement. However, I know that parts of it are easily proven true. Let’s look at a few parts of the above.
Politics can suppress false religion. Two examples. The United States outlawed the Mormon practice of polygamy. Currently, many are trying to outlaw displays of Satanic worship in public schools—especially as clubs on elementary campuses—and displays in public places. Plurality does have limits; especially, in a nation founded on Christian values. Oh, and don’t forget that all law is moral and an establishment of someone’s religion.
A State can establish a church. Yep, this is also a true statement. The majority of the 13 colonies had state sponsored churches when they ratified the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution only prohibits establishing a national church. Ditto for test oaths. Tax money also went to state sponsored churches to pay their clergy and other church expenses.
Requiring church attendance by citizens might be more problematic; however, it would not surprise me if the Pilgrims and other early settlers had such a requirement. Again, what is the context?
As for the “Christian Prince.” We are not given any context, however, my first thought is of Machiavelli’s book “The Prince.” Other ideas might include Constantine or a Trump-like figure that used Scripture as his guide to rule.
The presenter does not analyze this statement, just mocks it and dismisses it out of hand.
Congratulations. You have now endured about 38 minutes of this presentation.
Part II
With a horrible, stutter of the video, we then get a new presenter, that I assume is Pastor Kohl.
We will now get a theological critique of Christian Nationalism… well maybe.
Rev Kohl starts with a definition of Christianity or says he will, then takes a detour of sorts thru the book of Romans. He tries contrasting the Apostle Paul versus Stephen Wolfe, but Wolfe is not given in context, just one sentence, again without context. Then he goes back to Genesis and talks about Abraham.
At this point Kohl slaps Doug Wilson on a quote dealing with baptism. Again, there is no context. I wonder if Wilson advocates infant baptism while Kohl does not. And who cares? What does this have to do with Christian Nationalism? Probably nothing.
On one of the slides, Kohl has Abraham’s son Isaac spelled as “Isac”. Another minus point for Kohl.
Then he jumps to Wolfe again with a series of quotes on nationalism that seem varied. As usual, they are presented without context. Then he jumps to Moses and quotes some stuff about his wife who may have been black. I’m not sure of his point. I think that Kohl is trying to build a foundation that Christian Nationalists are all racists. Hope he’s better than that. He is on a rant about groups and factions. I will wait and see where this goes.
Now he pulls a quote from Wolfe that says the invisible church and the visible church are the same group. Again, no context so I don’t know if there is more to this than stated. We also don’t know what Wolfe’s church affiliation is so we don’t know if we are defining terms the same way or differently? Lastly, as a practical matter, we don’t know the difference between the visible and invisible church, God is the one that sees men’s hearts and knows who is truly save not us.
The next Wolfe quote is:
But public heresy has the potential to harm other’s souls by causing doubt or distraction or by disrupting public peace. The magistrate, who must care for the souls of his people, may act to suppress that heresy.
In my mind, I think of claims that homosexuality, abortion, or transgenderism are biblically ok. This would be heresy that casts doubt and disrupts the public peace.
Kohl mocks this whole statement but by what standard does he expect us to be government if not the Bible?
Kohl rants on about the visible vs invisible church and that Christian Nationalists have this wrong as a way for them to lord power over the rest of us. He states this as fact but never proves it. The scholarship used to construct this presentation is really poor.
As I stated at the first, there is no leader of Christian Nationalism. It is a strawman invented by liberals. Some of us are ok to own the label instead of demanding a new or different one.
Kohl tries to make out fellow believers as Judaizers. He again spanks Doug Wilson on baptism. Based on the quotes cited, Wilson believes that baptism is membership into the covenant and thus a sign of one’s salvation. This is not a radical Christian view unless maybe you are a Baptist which Kohl doesn’t appear to be. Children that are baptized are treated as believers as long as they walk in the faith. Baptized children are presumed saved. They have covenant membership and should be allowed access to the Lord’s Table, Holy Communion, or whatever you want to call it. As they get older it is assumed that they will make the faith their own via a decision, confirmation, or some other act. If they don’t then a time may come when they are not longer covenant members in good standing.
There it goes, “Judaizers were the original Christian Nationalists.”
Kohl says, Christian Nationalists believe in Jesus plus something else as the basis of salvation and that is why they are wrong. I find this troublesome because he has produced zero quotes that this is the case. He hasn’t tied salvation to any sort of political movement. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Kohl’s Three Card Monty lost the pea a long time ago, but his listeners are supposed to be in awe because the cups are still being shuffled about.
This presentation is empty of substance. The only point he has made so far is that there is a difference between the visible and invisible church and Mr. Wolfe might be shaky on that point. To me it’s a secondary issue.
I’m an hour and twenty minutes into this thing and I have yet to hear what Christian Nationalists want to do in a political way that is at variance with the Bible or why they are objectionable. Furthermore, what is the Berean Christian Fellowship’s more biblical alternative?
Mercifully it is intermission. I’m taking a pit stop. We have one hour remaining in this presentation.
This section is presented by a third person. Again, none of the speakers have been introduced.
The presenter is promising to give a history of Christian Nationalism. He references the Roman Church and pulls a quote from Leithart that sounds rather Roman. I quote only the latter part:
… so there can be no Church without sacraments. Since there can be no salvation without the Church, since indeed, the Church is salvation, there is no salvation without the sacraments.
I can see why some might object to this statement, but what does it have to do with Christian Nationalism? The Church is the Bride of Christ so there is a sense in which this is true. Also, the Church is charged with administering the sacraments. Yes, technically salvation is thru the sacrifice of Christ but all those saved by Him are part of His Bride the Church. Again, without context, I feel that this quote is being manipulated by the presenters.
The next section is some history on the Reformation. In the midst of this topic, the presenter interjects another quote by Wolfe. Again, without context. The word “who” in this quote (below) could refer to God or the prince. I can’t tell which, but it makes a huge difference in the meaning of this sentence.
The prince enlivens laws not as an agent of coercion but as the divinely sanctioned vicar of God who binds conscience to just applications of natural law, as one who directs public reason.
The reoccurrence of “the prince’ makes me harken back to Machiavelli. It is worth asking if Wolfe believes Machiavelli’s The Prince was a serious treatise of politics or a satirical document. The former is the view of most academics, but the latter is my position on this work.
The presenter bashes the idea of the prince also being the spiritual leader of the nation. Whether Wolfe advocates this or is just mimicking Machiavelli or this is in a different context altogether is unknown. I think the presenter is trying to equate Wolfe’s ideas with an Anglican view of Christianity where the king is both political and spiritual head of the nation. The U.S. Constitution prohibits this from happening by outlawing a national church. King Saul (and later David & Jesus) exercised the offices of prophet, priest, and king at the same time. This is not the American system but is clearly a biblical idea.
The presenter then quotes some fellow named Dan Fisher for writing,
“[preachers] had been laying the groundwork for the [American] revolution by preaching for years that believers could not separate their religious convictions from their political positions and actions.”
Folks isn’t that what Christian Nationalists are advocating? Religious convictions should not be separated from their political positions and actions. In other words, your faith should be reflected in how you live your life the other six days of the week. What’s wrong with that?
Oh, the last sentence of the pull quote by Fisher is:
It was clear they saw no contradiction in mixing politics and religion.
The presenter keeps going back to Wolfe’s book and contrasting his view with other writings. Folks, it’s really dumb to do this. Who says they are followers of Wolfe? I’ve never met anyone who even knows who he is. I have looked at lots of videos by Vincent James and read stuff by Torba and Wilson and never heard of Wolfe or his ideas mentioned. This is a longform strawman presentation where we get to spank Wolfe like a piñata.
Finally, he gets to his point, “the American Revolution was a violation of Christian Nationalism.”
His thesis is that King James of England was a Christian Nationalist, and the Pilgrims were fleeing to American to escape Christian Nationalism. To these guys at Berean, Christian Nationalists want to destroy our country and establish a monarchy in its place. Sorry, I only met one guy in my life that ever wanted a monarchy in the United States, and he died last year.
Now the presenter is claiming to go to the Bible to see what it says about government. Oh, the time counter is at one hour, 47 minutes. Wanna bet they call themselves a Bible church?
Their first assertion is, “Political power comes ultimately from God but practically from the will of the people.” The presenter goes to the writings of Moses where Moses sets up the rulers of tens, hundreds, and thousands. Then to Saul and then David. He is trying to claim that the Old Testament political system was a republic like ours’.
He then goes to quotes, again and again by Wolfe, concerning the prince. I think it’s clear that Wolfe is not talking specifically about America and how it should be governed but it is an update to The Prince or written in much the same style as a political theory book.
Finally, two hours in, we get to Romans 13, a favorite home to heretics and antinomians that really believed the two-weeks-to-flatten-the-curve BS. After a cursory mention of the passage, we go to secular political theory with Hans Eysenck’s Theory of Government. Oh, another misspelling on their PowerPoint slides as his last name was spelled “Eyseneck”.
In the name of fairness, I went to the fount of all authority in political matters, at least for these presenters, Wikipedia. There I learned that Eysenck forged much of the data used on his work, and no one has been able to replicate key parts of it. The data used for his political information was manipulated as well. Then the presenter goes to several other charts on politics in rapid succession. A biblical model of how we should be governed or what the rules should be followed is no where to be seen. With ten minutes remaining, he gets to a model of American government that emphasizes four points: the rule of law, limited government, government does not control access to God, and salvation is individual.
Part IV
Wow, with eight minutes left we get another part and another presenter. (same guy as Part I.)
Christian Nationalism in not Christian or American
Christian Nationalism is not the answer to our problems.
Christian Nationalism is just another flavor of tyranny.
Have an answer based on biblical principles on which our nation was founded.
Berean Church has carefully cherrypicked Christian Nationalism to make a case that can’t really be made. If they were honest then they would have dealt with Torba’s book on Christian Nationalism as well as Stephen Wolfe’s. Dominion is not mentioned at all in this presentation even thought it is found from the earliest pages of Genesis to Revelation.
Berean Church says that Christian Nationalism is not the answer, but they never offer any alternatives. They are silent on what the Bible says a civil government should do. Should we infer that God doesn’t care?
Again, Berean Church uses pull quotes from one book to try to make their case about all Christian Nationalists. Their claim that all people calling themselves Christian Nationalists advocate for tyranny is ridiculous. Even the things that they quote from Wolfe don’t support that claim. If the Biden and Obama administrations prove anything, it’s that you don’t need a monarchy to live under tyranny. Ditto for Canada and Australia.
Knowing biblical principles on how our nation was founded are great but when folks around us deny the authority of Scripture and the church is silent on today’s social and cultural issues then what good is that? How does the Bible speak to our problems now? Again, Berean Church is silent.
The words of Gary North, R.J. Rushdoony, and others are echoing in my mind, you can’t beat something with nothing. Or if you prefer, the question posed in the 1970’s and 80’s by Francis Schaffer, How Should We Then Live?
Sorry, but I don’t see Christian Nationalism as a quest to force a monarchy onto the United States. I see it as a call for Christians to bring biblical answers to bear on the real world instead of Christians hiding it their pews hoping to be raptured so they won’t have to reap what they have sewn. Christian Nationalism is a call for the Church to get off its butt and redeem the time because the days are evil.
Andrew Torba signs every email that he sends with the words “Christ is King.” He does not advocate for the United States to be ruled by a king because we already have a king, and his name is Jesus. Torba does want Christians to be free from being cancelled by the Left and advocates that we have parallel structures that are truly free of censorship. This is similar to what Saint Patrick did to evangelize Ireland.
Vincent James does not advocate for a monarchy in the United States. However, he does advocate for people to have the same rules for their friends and enemies. He despises double standards; especially, when he is a member of the group being singled out for discriminatory treatment. I think he would agree that men should be judged by the content of their character.
I have read the Boniface Option. It is short, whitty, and has a large dose of sarcasm. It calls for men to be men and laments the societal decay of our nation.
I’m not a follower of anybody critiqued in this presentation except Jesus and they didn’t have much to say about him which is sad. My views on the Bible were formed before there was such a thing as Christian Nationalism and, in some circles, they are even more controversial. The Bible says, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Let’s start with that statement and work together as we are able instead of trying to manufacture new ways to unchurch each other.
Last fall, I bought a live album recorded in the 1980’s off the artist’s [Mylon LeFevre] website. Seems he followed his parent’s footsteps and ended up in the ministry. As it turns out, this guy had died about three weeks before I placed my order. Anyway, I ended up on the ministry’s email list. This was my first direct exposure to the Pentecostal end of Christendom in many years.
The artist’s wife is carrying on the ministry and she is palling around with Kenneth Copeland.
Tomorrow, April 5th would have been Mylon’s and my 26th wedding anniversary. It was the day Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, along with my Pastors, George and Terri Pearsons, set me apart and ordained me into full time ministry.
Copeland is a guy I haven’t crossed path with since my second year of college. I had a roommate that played Copeland’s radio show in the dorm room. I’m sure he’s the radio preacher that I heard claim that if you were in prison and gave your life to Christ that not only would God forgive you of your sin, but you would be forgiven in the eyes of man and be released from prison. Apparently, when Jesus makes you free, he really makes you free.
A few days ago, I received a new email update that just blew my mind. I will quote the relevant part below and then we can talk further. I tried to find a URL with the same content but was unable to locate a copy in cyberspace. As a result, I will quote extensively to show that I am responding in context.
God recently instructed me to make a petition for the future of this ministry. We’ve started a new chapter and turned the page. God is writing my story and He’s writing yours too. As we trust Him, it will be a beautiful story. But in order to move forward, we must focus on what we know, NOT on what we don’t know. The Word is always our safe place. God is not a man that He can lie. His Word will never return void. Job 22:28-29 AMPC says we “DECIDE and DECREE a thing, and it shall be established for (us;) and the light [of God’s FAVOR] shall shine upon (our) ways.” Did you get that? We decide, not God. The verse continues to explain when situations arise that tempt us to be discouraged, we SAY, “There is a lifting UP!” So, I declare we’re going UP in this ministry!
Emphasis in the original.
First the biblical passage Job 22: 28 – 29 (KJV)
Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways. When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person.
Who was speaking, to whom, and what was the context?
The book of Job is about a man sorely tested by Satan—with God’s permission—and then three friends of Job try to comfort him by being critical of Job and trying to prove to him that he deserved the punishment.
This chapter of dialogue is spoken by Eliphaz. Eliphaz believed that riches and material blessings were proof of a person following God and being upright. This is a popular myth that many still believe is true to this day. This myth was very evident in the time of Jesus and is seen throughout the Gospels. The belief is that the rich are so because they obey God and are blessed; likewise, the poor are poor for disobedience. Scripture makes it clear that this might be the case but not always. The rich might very well be rich by stealing and being greedy or criminals or obtaining their wealth in immoral ways. A quick read of Psalms or Proverbs makes this abundantly clear. For example, Psalm 73: 12 “Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.” Clearly prosperity does not equal godliness.
In 1710, Matthew Heny stated this on the passage in Job.
The answer of Eliphaz wrongly implied that Job had hitherto not known God, and that prosperity in this life would follow his sincere conversion. The counsel Eliphaz here gives is good, though, as to Job, it was built upon a false supposition that he was a stranger and enemy to God.
OK, so the passage in Job is not spoken by Job or God. The book makes it plain that Job was righteous and did nothing to deserve punishment. Thus, the only righteous characters in Job are Job and God. Every other character in the book is wrong in one way or another. Anyone that understands the book knows that all advice given to Job by his friends was in error. Thus, when you see this passage being brought forth as the way to conduct your life, beware. A yellow or red flag should be waving in your mind.
Let’s go through the paragraph one step at a time.
“God recently instructed me…” Like in an audible voice or via friends or His Word? I grant that God talks more than we listen but …
“We’ve started a new chapter and turned the page.” OK, your husband died, and your life continues.
“God is writing my story and … yours”. We trust Him. We are faithful to Him.
“But…”
Now comes the set-up. There is a sense in which this can be an orthodox Christian thing but not necessarily. She is in essence saying we walk by the light God has given us and we don’t know everything; like maybe the future, but we trust Him.
“The Word is always a safe place.” Really? The Word is a sword. Or if you prefer, “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” Matthew 21: 44. The Word shows us our need and God’s remedy. I wouldn’t describe that as “safe.” The use of “safe” here harkens back to Narnia where the question was asked as the whether Aslan was tame.
Then she quotes part of Numbers 23: 19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
And then Isaiah 55: 11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
This verse is often understood as God’s Word going forth to either bring men to salvation or hardening their hearts for judgement.
“The special “word” which the prophet has here in mind is the promise, so frequently given, of deliverance from Babylon and return in peace and joy to Palestine. But he carries his teaching beyond the immediate occasion, for the benefit of the people of God in all ages.
Finally, we arrive at the central thesis of the entire email; namely, the verses from Job which I previously quoted.
Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee: and the light shall shine upon thy ways.
Job … says we “DECIDE and DECREE a thing, and it shall be established for (us;) and the light [of God’s FAVOR] shall shine upon (our) ways.” Did you get that? We decide, not God.
Red flag alert.
“We decide, not God.”
Folks, this email is claiming that we can tell God to do something, and He MUST do it? Wow. This is a bold and arrogant statement.
The Pulpit Commentary notes that this verse has “a touch of audacity.” No kidding.
Gill’s Exposition states, “Strictly speaking, this is only true of God, whose decrees are unfrustrable, whose counsel shall stand, and the thoughts of his heart be established to all generations; and frequently so it is, according to an usual saying, man appoints, but God disappoints …”
Is this what Matthew 21: 22 means? “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”
Clearly this author would say “yes” with no caveats or restrictions. Name it and claim it. God must do what we decide. Doesn’t that make us God or at least make God, not be God?
Here again there is the implied condition (as in Matthew 7:7) that what is asked is in harmony with the laws and will of God. If it were not so it would not be asked in faith, and every true prayer involves the submission of what it asks to the divine judgment.
Munster’s Hebrew Gospel reads it, “in prayer, and in faith”; and the Arabic version renders it, “in prayer with faith”; both to the same purpose, and aptly express the sense of the words, which design the prayer of faith; or that prayer which is put up in the strength of faith; and is of great avail with God: for whatever is asked in faith, agreeable to the will of God, which is contained in his covenant, word, and promises, and makes for his glory, and the good of his people, shall be given …
Gill’s Exposition
Does God really give us a blank check to give us anything we like? Is He really the giant ATM or Santa Claus in the sky? Must God do what we tell Him?
NOPE
God makes it clear that His ways are not our ways.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. — Isaiah 55:8
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. — Isaiah 55: 9
Jesus said if we ask anything of the Father that we shall receive.
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. — Matthew 21: 22
However, it must be in accordance with His will.
And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. — I John 5: 14 – 15
James, the brother of Jesus, said it this way:
“Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” — James 4: 3
If you look a little further at the Scriptures, you will see that Eliphaz was wrong. We don’t tell God what to do. He is the Great King. We are to come before him in the name of Jesus and make our request according to his will. Sometimes God will grant our petitions to him, but he is under no obligation to do so. God will do what is best for us and quite often it is the hard way and not the easy one.
“Naming and claiming” or commanding God to do something just because we want it, is the clay spitting in the potter’s face. It’s more than a spiritual tantrum, its open rebellion against God. You can ask God for a million dollars or a new house or a cure for your cancer, but He is under no obligation to give it to you. The Scriptures are clear that we are to depend on Him. If anything, the trails of this life show us just how shallow and superficial such “stuff” is.
In a heartbeat, I’d trade everything I have, just to have my son back. I’d gladly give up my material possessions and my very life to see my son returned, but the truth is I have no control over such things. My wife and I pray daily and weep often that he is lost. His loss is a daily burden on both of us.
God doesn’t promise us a life of easy and prosperity; instead, he asks us to take up our cross and follow him. None of us is promised tomorrow. We certainly don’t have the right to expect anything from God, but he gives us generously as he sees fit.
Lastly, you will find that a form of judgement from God is giving us what we want.
His judgment, at least on this side of eternity, is to give sinners exactly what they want in preparation for the final day of judgment. And this is manifestly just, for sinners not only sin, but they take the extra step of justifying their sin and the sin of others. They approve of sin—calling evil good and good evil—and they encourage others to do so as well [Romans 1] (v. 32).
Prosperity, as the world defines it, is often just a way for God to turn up the heat on folks when judgement day rolls around. Anyone claiming that God must do anything we tell him to do is preaching “another gospel” and not the one delivered once and for all to the saints.
All law is legislating morality. All law is religious. Ditto for other political acts. The is no neutrality. This is a figment of the imagination. Those claiming neutrality are simply using such a claim to force their will on others while trying to stifle any opposition as they impose their morality on others.
Such was the case yesterday when the President of the United States, for the first time in the history of the Republic, purposely dissed any proclamation of Easter and thanking God for so great a salvation. (OK, Obama got close to this, but Joe went even further.) Joe proclaimed Easter Sunday as Transgender day of Visibility. Furthermore, no Christian symbols were allowed on any Easter eggs at the traditional White House Easter Egg Hunt. Yep, I know bunnies and eggs are not really Christian but in our Hallmark culture, the two have been baptized as Easter symbols.
Biden and company have been in an all-out war on Christianity—as was Obama when sleepy Joe was his Vice-President.
Biden—who thinks he can somehow be pro-abortion (for all nine months of the pregnancy)—and a Roman Catholic in good standing is simply an evil man. The spirit of antichrist is the platform of the Democrat Party (and of many Republicans too).
As for the cult of sterility, they are claiming 28 feast days and three months of the Julian Calendar in their attempt to abolish Christianity.
Fox News Digital found at least 28 other related holidays celebrated in the U.S., including International Asexuality Day, International Day of Pink, Day of Silence, Harvey Milk Day, Pansexual and Panromantic Awareness Day and International Drag Day.
There are also entire months devoted to LGBT causes or commemorations, including Pride Month in June, LGBT History Month in October and Transgender Awareness Month in November.
Biden should not be flying the rainbow flag or proclaiming any fag days to start with. Transgenderism is even more evil than homosexuality. It is a false and destructive religion. Changing one’s name is a sign of it being a religion. Thinking that one can change their gender is hubris and a type on mental illness. Thinking its God’s fault because He made you the wrong gender is blasphemy. On the face of it, transgender ideology violates at least half of the Ten Commandments.
To promote transgenderism (and a lot of other false crap in our society) is to tear down the Christian roots of our country.
Oh, we have known that Sunday March 31st, 2024, was Easter Sunday for at least the last four hundred years. The church calendar was figured out to the year 8,000 back in the 1600’s. So, there’s no excuse for a conflict… unless you want to have one.
Megan Rapinoe; aka the purple haired girl formerly on the women’s (can I use that term Megan?) soccer team; aka the girl who in her last game tore her ACL and claimed there was no God, is shooting off her mouth again. This time her vile stink was slung at a fellow women’s (again, is this offensive to you Megan?) national team player. Check this out.
U.S. Women’s National Team midfielder Korbin Albert issued an apology on social media after she liked and shared posts mocking soccer star Megan Rapinoe and the LGBTQ+ community.
Fans on social media noticed Albert, 20, had liked and shared several videos on TikTok and Instagram that included anti-LGBTQ+ messaging, including one post making fun of Rapinoe’s injury in the final game of her career.
Albert, it should be noted, wears Megan’s former number 15. Rapinoe skewered her and put her on blast….
“For people who want to hide behind ‘my beliefs’ I would just ask one question, are you making any type of space safer, more inclusive, more whole, any semblance of better, bringing the best out of anyone?” Rapinoe wrote in her Instagram story.
The message continued, “Because if you aren’t, all you believe in is hate. And kids are literally killing themselves because of this hate. Wake, TF up! Yours truly, #15.”
Rapinoe concluded her story by writing, “For all my trans homie enduring this horrific treatment day in and day out I see you and hear you and I am WITH YOU.”
Wow. This is coming from the tolerant left? No surprise. Albert I will note attends Notre Dame University and was likely raised in a Roman Catholic (oh my, bad Megan…. hateful right-wing cult) family. Megan, being the nasty vile person she is, has now sic’d her hateful followers on Albert. Her followers have one goal, to seek and destroy anyone who dares speak out or have an opinion that isn’t Group Think. I would love to see the DM’s (direct messages) Albert has received, I bet it’s full of hate.
Congrats Megan. You won. You aren’t even Transgender, but you feel you must lead a small army of folks who have massive mental health issues like yours, to destroy any opposition or contrary opinions. At my business, thanks to your soldiers, we no longer have a men’s and women’s bathrooms, they are “restrooms.” The building is populated almost entirely females, as some offices have private bathrooms for their staff. The female employees (oh wait…ummm persons with a vagina) have been complaining that the toilet seats have urine on them, or the floor has urine on it. Congrats Megan… you won! At my favorite Mexican Restaurant, we have a women’s restroom, and something called a family restroom. I guess a family that pee’s together, stays together? Which restroom does the biological male choose Megan?
As far as hate goes? How about stop inflicting hate on groups you do not like? It’s obvious you hate white men and women; however, allow me to point out, the only, and I mean only group who supports trans folks, are older white men and women. Check the polling data out. You want to know what groups hate you, Megan? Black, Hispanic and Asians. Big Time. Again, check it out. Want to know what other groups hate your LBGTQ lifestyle? Middle Eastern folks. Again, check it out, coming out and being discovered as a member of the alphabet soup can lead to death. Yup. Afghanistan? They are going to bring back public stoning. Oh, check out how their judicial system works. They think you committed a crime… you are guilty, it’s a sham trial. But hey, the USA is terrible right?
Hate religion? Ok, then religious holidays no longer apply to you! No time and a half pay because you do not believe in a God. You are required to report to work and work you will on that day. It shouldn’t be a big deal working on Christmas, right? BTW should we cancel Christmas altogether? Last I checked it’s a Mr. and Mrs. Claus not trans/gay/lesbian couple. So, let’s get rid of it right?
Megan…may I make a suggestion; you won’t listen but let me try. It’s called “live and let live”. You should understand some folks will not support your lifestyle (you are married to another woman, so I call it a lesbian “marriage”) however since it is the law of the land (at least for now), I am happy for you and your partner. I attend church services once a week… how about we agree to a cease fire? As far as trans folks go, if you are over 18 by all means you do you. I just want folks to understand the consequences down the road, as I feel this isn’t discussed at all. If a bakery won’t do a wedding cake etc. for LBGTQ folks, find another one? Why try to destroy that business? The logic is simple, an LBGTQ friendly store likely won’t make a GOP/Nazi/KKK etc. cake. Just find a different store. Some people believe in God, others don’t. The believers go to church or watch it… the non-believers do not attend. Frankly it doesn’t bother me. But why not live and let live?
Finally, I want to run a scenario by you Megan. Say its 4 years ago, you are still playing professionally. I join your team. I am a 27-year-old white male biologically, but since I started puberty blockers and doing estrogen injections, as far as your sport is concerned, I’m cleared to partake. I make the team since I possess a body and skill set superior to your teammates. Of course, I have your support and likely some of your teammates, right? I’m trans so you better support me, right? It doesn’t matter if I start, come off the bench, or seldom play because I made the team. The game/practice ends, and we go back to the locker room. It’s time to dress down, shower etc. I have long hair, and have shaved everywhere else on my body, but I have all my male parts still. You going to be completely naked around me? You ok with me being naked around you? Would your teammates care? Carli Lloyd seemed fairly outspoken that she wouldn’t accept me. What would your reaction be Megan?
Best part Megan is you don’t have to react. You have retired. Your safe space is the 5-million-dollar apartment you and your partner Sue Bird own. It’s likely one of many properties you call your own. The biggest decision you have to make is what Michelin Star restaurant to eat at. You likely attend an exclusive gym for only the super wealthy. You have zero interaction with the unwashed masses you claim to care about. You are the worst kind of person. You’re just another limousine liberal trying to tell the rest of us how to live. Be better. Start a support group for trans people. Share what trans people want/need to feel included. Quit glorifying countries that hate folks like you. Need I remind you Britney Griner was arrested, jailed, and convicted in Russia likely because she is a girl, black, and a lesbian. Be an agent of change. Stop your hate.
Jake the Snake
Editor’s Comment: I think Korbin Albert should have stuck to her original comments. Megan’s real problem is God not Albert. Megan doesn’t like being reminded that she is wrong. (See Romans 1:21-32) She resorts to blustering and bullying and tries to cancel those that disagree with her. Too bad. It’s curious that often the loudest voice is the one that’s in the wrong. They hope their volume will drown out the rest of us.
Democrats are livid that their Sacrament of Abortion suffered a major setback when Roe v Wade was undone by the Supreme Court. This threw the issue back to the states. Each state has different laws on the subject. Some like California have enshrined not only abortion but infanticide as the law of the land while others have essentially eliminated the abominable practice all together.
Donald Trump is responsible for putting justices on the Court that had the principles to do the right thing. Now, Trump is trying a dangerous gambit that has little upside. He again, and I say again because he floated some similar rhetoric many months ago, is trying to get a national agreement on abortion limitations. We just got the issue sent back to the states and now Trump wants it Federalized via Congressional action. Whiskey Tango Orange Man?
Trump wants four things in the federal abortion law, a limit to 16 weeks (which we concede is a major improvement on California, New York, and many other states) and he wants the exception clause of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
First, why does Trump expect candidates for Constitutional office–the House and Senate–to take campaign positions on a clearly state issue? If the Supreme Court couldn’t find abortion in the Constitution, then why should Congress claim they have the power to add it unilaterally?
Second, at 16 weeks, all we are doing is trying to reinstate abortion as a form of birth control. Less than one percent of abortions when it was legal under Roe were for such situations as rape, incest, or life of the mother. The few have always been the grounds for slaughtering the many.
If Trump is simply trying to illustrate that Democrats are hellbent on abortion being legal everywhere, for all nine months of pregnancy, and daring them to defend this extreme position, maybe he makes a political point, but I see weak-kneed Republicans as terrified that Roe is gone. Like many other issues in politics, it was safe to fundraise on an issue that they have never been willing to correct via the legislative process. Repeal and replace Obamacare being the other example on the Republican side of the ledger, immigration on the Democrat side. As stated before, politicians would rather campaign on an issue than actually try to fix it.
Oh, 16 weeks is on the edge of viability under current medical knowledge and about the time folks begin noticing the “baby bump” on pregnant women.
When Roe was legal, Planned Parenthood would never report cases of rape and incest to law enforcement so what makes you think they will now? They will just call it that in order to kill the baby, but no police reports will be generated. They will hide behind HIPAA, and other privacy laws and it will be back to business as usual.
Molach god of child sacrifice
The only potentially moral reason for abortion is an argument of self-defense in the rare case of the mother’s life being balanced with her child’s. The reality is that the life of the mother is the only time a decision is made between a woman and her doctor.
Trump is wrong to float this idea even if it is just to flush-out the extreme views of the Democrats. Abortion is wrong be it 16 hours, weeks, or in the case of California 16 months. Abortion is wrong in cases or rape and incest. Better to punish the offenders and place the baby up for adoption if mom can’t care for the child.
Lastly, Trump just galls me when he uses the Disney lie of following your heart when dealing with abortion.
But I tell people, No. 1, you have to go with your heart. You have to go with your heart.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? — Jeremiah 17:9
Sorry Donald but you can’t be a child of God and offer your children to Moloch. Furthermore, asking God to Bless America when we serve other gods is using God’s name in vain. Abortion is a violation of several of the Ten Commandments in one act. Any nation supporting such abominations is on the chopping block of divine judgement.
