Tuesday, April 03, 2018

Is the Church’s Focus Too Narrow?

Last week I posted a blog that centered on the breadth of topics in the Bible that are substantially ignored by our churches but which can be instructive for us today.  Such topics include immigration, the role of the Federal government, sexual cultural issues, personal responsibility, among others. Our culture and government have gone astray regarding each of these areas of concern.  The Churches inexplicably ignore these and many other essentials the Bible teaches.

In a number of churches I’ve attended I’ve noted an exceedingly narrow focus of sermons. 

In one Presbyterian church, the very well educated Doctor of Ministry preached as if he were nothing more than a teacher of ancient Biblical history.  He focused on the languages they spoke, the food they ate, the utensils that were used, the geography of the area, the form of money they used, the laws they tried to enforce and many other bits of historical trivia.  Nowhere in the sermons was there any attempt to draw spiritual analogies to current cultural or political issues and concerns.  And they called their building a “church.”

Another example:  I’ve attended a church where over a period of 50 Sundays the focus of the Sermon was centered on the need to accept Christ to receive forgiveness of our sins and then urging individuals to come up to the alter.  Can you guess how many have come up to the alter in that year to make a profession of faith in response to those dozens of hours of sermons?  None!  Not one. 

I certainly appreciate the central importance of preaching Christ and the need for salvation in our Churches.  Don’t get me wrong.  But I also recognize two more things:  1) The concept of knowing your audience, and 2) The great void in the teaching of other Bible topics.

If after a couple dozen Sundays of basically the same message with zero response one might realize that either everyone in the Church is already saved, or there are a few people who don’t want to show their hand.  In either case, I would suspect that an alternative message – alternative lessons - may be in order.  Protestants are often critical of the rituals of Catholics.  Protestants have some rituals of their own to overcome.  It reminds me of the old axiom of the definition of insanity regarding doing the same thing over and over.  You get the point. 

Preach Christ. But he had more to say than “repent and be saved” or “believe and be saved.”  Repent from what?  Believe what?

One thing that’s lacking in our culture and among many congregations is an understanding of the principle and consequence of “sin.”  A less “Christiany” phrase is “deadening of conscience.”  In today’s culture, understanding or accepting the concept of “sin” is eroding fast.  I know, I know.  Some don’t want to discuss this in our churches because it is a downer – it lacks “joy.”, “fun”, “excitement” – it isn’t “entertaining.”

Isaiah 53:3 reflects the burden Christ felt concerning the lost and sin around him.  He certainly felt little “joy:”

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

Joy, like happiness, is elusive – too often based on superficial actions or events.  Joy without substance is dead, every bit as much as faith without works is dead. 

Today’s culture is killing conscience – mocking morality.  The culture is jettisoning bits and pieces of the definition of sin every week.  Think “homosexuality”, “gay marriage”, “gay clergy”, forcing Christians to celebrate these perversions in their professions:  photography, baking cakes.  Public schools are forcing acceptance of various perverse behaviors on our children, mostly sexual in nature, that used to be called “sin”.   Thirty years ago public schools began prohibiting the singing of Christian carols at Christmas.  Now they protect and defend the practice of perversions that have been clearly labelled “sin” for centuries by the Christian faith.  How far down we’ve gone since 200 years ago when Christianity was the norm in state governance, and since 50 years ago when we read Bible versus and said the Lord’s prayer in our public schools.

Our states and our nation were founded on Biblically-based Christian principles.  But to suggest that today is secular blasphemy.  Do the churches engage to refute these secularist lies?  No!  Not even many of the more conservative churches I’ve attended do this.  And the mainline churches:  They may as well redact 50% of the Bible with a King Sized Sharpie.

It is time for Churches to broaden their teaching and address the lack of understanding of some very basic concepts in Scripture, “sin” being one among many.  Without an understanding of “sin” and its partners, “conscience” and “self control”, there will be no understanding of the need for Christ and His offer of salvation and eternal life with Him.

Without this understanding, there will be no reason for “joy.”  Joy and a sense of fulfillment will be empty gestures until individuals accept the saving grace of Christ.  And to accept that, they need to understand what sin is, what their sin is, that they need to commit to their own self-judgement, and seek Christ for the ultimate solution.  Then joy will come.  Joy is a by-product of our salvation, not an end in itself.

Sure, Churches use all sorts of techniques to attract “the lost” to attend their services.  I’ve attended some really upbeat events, complete with rock bands, fantastic soloists, huge pipe organs, and thrilling light shows.  Joy abounds.  But is there any sense or urgency in needing Christ in all of that?  I suspect the entertaining “noise” masks much of the message.  Yes, I understand we are to “make a joyful noise unto the Lord.”  But I sense that much of the “joyful noise” Churches produce is unto the lost and for the lost who will remain lost.

What about a congregation that already believes they have been saved?  What do you do with them?  That is where lessons in evangelism, discipleship,  teaching - among other spiritual gifts - would be very appropriate.  And that is where lessons that connect the Bible’s vast teaching concerning nationhood, governance, and the many cultural issues facing us today would be exceedingly valuable. 

The point is this:  Essential explanations of a Biblically-based Christian world view are being ignored in favor of excessively narrow teaching.

Having a congregation that feels confident in the numerous Bible precepts that impact our culture for good would have a high probability of producing “joy.” 

Friday, March 30, 2018

Is the Church Avoiding “Politics” to its Detriment?

Church leaders often express their disdain for the discussion of “politics”, especially from the pulpit.  I often hear “we don’t discuss politics…it’s too divisive.”

In the Church’s blanket avoidance of discussion of “politics” it conveniently avoids discussion of numerous teachings of the Bible that are at the heart of our cultural, governmental, and economic dissensions and divisions.

The Church appears to over broadly define politics as anything that has to do with the relationship between governments, laws, morality, personal behavior and self-discipline.

Don’t discuss homosexuality.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss gay marriage.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss abortion.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss out of wedlock marriage.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss the government’s incentive sapping welfare system. It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss excessive reliance on government entitlements.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss the evils of Islam.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss the overblown role of government that displaces personal and church responsibilities.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss rampant illegal immigration.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss patriotism and building a strong nation.  It might offend someone.

Don’t discuss the Christian foundations of our nation.  It might offend someone.

These are all components of what many Church leaders define as “politics”, discussion of which is to be avoided at all costs.  Off limits.  Don’t cause dissension.  Don’t offend.  Let’s avoid these topics so we can attract more members – more potential “converts” or more revenue.  This “big tent” priority sounds more like the aspiration of a political party than a legitimate priority of the Church.

The whole Bible, from beginning to end, discusses the relationships between God, governments, and mankind.  It begins with the first interactions between Adam and Eve and God, with Satan as the  foreshadow of government:  The antagonist; the interloper.  The relationship between God, the people, the Laws, the Judges and the Kings continues throughout the Old Testament.  The New Testament brings about a cleansing from oppressive Laws through Jesus Christ.  It renews the spirit of the personal relationship between God and the individual which was  intended from the beginning.  Throughout, it continues to demonstrate the tug of war between our innate evil tendencies and what God desires of us as a “higher law”, superior to all the laws created by either secular or religious laws.

But the modern Church appears to prefer to ignore these themes.  It prefers justifying our surrender to the culture and government overreach, declaring its overly broad definition of “politics” as taboo; off limits.

Instead, the Church finds a comfortable corner of Scripture concerning faith, personal salvation, and how much better we will all feel.  Sin?  What’s that?  Can it even be defined anymore since such a large part of the Church not merely excuses but embraces what was formerly universally understood to be sin.  Without acknowledgement of “sin”, how can there be forgiveness and reconciliation?  Then who needs Christ?  Wow, we are now free from the constraints of religion.  Imagine, as John Lennon did.

And now, whether a misquote or a revelation from an apostate, an official of the Catholic Church appears to have said there is no hell.

Without a “hell” there is no constraint.  Both individuals and governments can do whatever they please.  Wipe away all sense of right and wrong, don’t judge, and we have the ultimate clean slate for us to be made in the image of government instead of in the image of God.  Who needs God if there is no sin and no hell?  This is the ultimate path to Communism, the “ideal” that has led to more dictatorships, more death, and more loss of freedom than any other ideology with the exception of Islam.

The Church is allowing the culture to destroy it by its silence.

Why doesn’t the Church talk about these things?

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Broward Sheriff Should Resign–Guest comment

Many across the nation are urging the firing of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel for his incompetence demonstrated by his department’s many failures before and during the Parkland high school atrocity.

The Rebel website highlights a number of additional reasons justifying his resignation or firing.  Here it is:


Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel must resign or be fired



Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel’s history of corruption, incompetence, protecting radical Muslims, and politicizing the Sheriff’s Office has now resulted in the deaths of 17 innocents.

He must be removed.

It's time for Florida Governor Rick Scott to fire Sheriff Scott Israel if he refuses to resign.

Scott Israel was a problem for Broward County long before the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. His history of disgracing the Sheriff’s Office before the school shooting includes:

Israel’s policies, most likely architected by his political appointees doing jobs that should have been done by career law enforcement professionals, allowed for dozens of calls on Parkland killer Nikolas Cruz to fall through the cracks.

It was Israel's management, also shown by those same incompetent political appointees, which resulted in four deputies, including the now disgraced School Resource Deputy Scott Peterson, not entering the high school. They refused to enter despite hearing the gunshots that were slaughtering those children and faculty members.

Every day Scott Israel remains Broward County Sheriff, the residents of Broward County and the good men and women of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office are less safe.

The citizens of Broward County deserve better. Those deputies deserve better. And school children throughout the county definitely deserve better.

Scott Israel is a far left politician in a Sheriff’s Uniform. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office is one of this nation’s largest and needs a cop, not a political hack at the helm. Israel must go.

The time has come to Fire Scott Israel! If you agree, then please sign my petition below. 


Here is an article from other sources urging Israel’s removal:


Note this:  In stark contrast, the officers of The Coral Springs Police Department did the right thing and entered the school to attempt to confront the shooter immediately upon arriving at the scene – bringing credit to that department.   This reflects the vast difference in leadership and training between the two departments.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

The Parkland School Shooting and Decline of Common Sense…

At 2:30 pm on Wednesday, February 14th, 2018, local police responded to a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in affluent Parkland, Florida.  Seventeen people, mostly students, were killed, and another 14 injured.

The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, age 19, is a former student who was expelled due to threats made to other students.  The Superintendent of public schools in Broward County reported that Cruz was reassigned to another local school.

Officials and parents are puzzling over why this  killing occurred and how similar events in the future can be avoided.

Many suggest “guns” are the problem.  Cruz owned his AR-15 legally despite many signs of hateful and crazed behavior.

In fact, the FBI was made aware of a YouTube post in September 2017 by Cruz.

From The Sun:

“Writing underneath a documentary clip about the notorious 1966 University of Texas clock tower sniper, a commenter called Nikolas Cruz wrote: “I’m going to [do] what he did.”

“A man calling himself “BentheBondsman” released a clip alleging that someone commenting under the gunman’s name wrote: “I want to be a professional school shooter.””

I heard an FBI spokesman this morning say there was no way to identify the source of those YouTube comments.  Really?  Or was this just a lame excuse for FBI failure?  We hear the frequent pleas of FBI and law enforcement to citizens: “see something – say something.”  A YouTube viewer saw something AND said something to the FBI.  And nothing happened.

We hear of those who report suspicious activity by Middle Eastern or Arabic/Farsi speaking individuals only to later learn of a lawsuit or bad press against either the reporting individual or law enforcement for “discrimination”, “harassment”, or a bogus “hate crime.”

In our  increasingly liberal churches we incessantly hear the out of context command of “don’t judge”, or friends mindlessly parroting “take the log out of your own eye before you judge others.”  But we all have logs.  Does that mean we are to never judge?  Foolish!

Some say this was a "senseless act" and Cruz was "mentally disturbed." These are the excuses used by those who don't want to bother to dig deeper and understand the sense this made to the shooter.

Sure, the shooter had a troubled life. A lot of people have a "troubled life" but the vast majority don't kill because it.  But some do.

In this case his “troubled life” was made known to multiple agencies who. did. nothing.

It is absolutely true that there were "a lot of signs." The students knew it.  The school administration knew it.  The Superintendent of schools knew it.  So Cruz was transferred to another school?  Sounds like the shuffling of sodomizing Catholic priests form one diocese to another.  And the FBI knew it but did nothing despite someone saying something.

The school leadership,  Broward Count Child and Family Services, the Sheriff's Department and the FBI, all of these entities had a hand in ignoring the problem.

Are schools too big and impersonal?  The student enrollment of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is over 3,100.   Students generally, and especially existing and potential troublemakers specifically, get lost in the huge bureaucratic system and social system in such a large school.

Possible solutions: Drastically downsize schools.  This is more costly, yes.  Would this be worth the price?  Very likely.  Are parents and voters willing to pay the price?  Probably not.

Other alternatives for parents who care more:  Sacrifice to send to small private schools or home school.

Many schools across the nation have tighter security than this school apparently had.  They keep exterior doors locked.  They screen visitors before they buzz them in.  They keep those out who are unknown or seen as a potential threat.  They keep armed security (teachers or law enforcement) at entrances at school openings and closings.  None of this was done at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.  In fact, the two law enforcement officers at the outsized school reportedly never saw the shooter.  For a huge, sprawling school with over 3,100 student, do we really believe two trained security officers is enough?  A security assessment is essential.  Maybe 5 or 10 trained officers are needed for this size school.

Here is the broader problem:  We have become a culture whose highest value is “judge nothing; tolerate everything.”

We have a cultural and political environment that frowns on the promotion of traditional morality in the schools that used to be based on (dare I say it) Christian Biblical Standards. These standards were an integral part of our public education system until 50 to 60 years ago. We've fallen so far down the slippery slope due to this lack.

Our churches and Bible studies focus on not judging anything or anyone.  They are too often led by those who value “not offending” more than Biblical truth.  They take Scripture out of context to stress their culture-driven value system.  Very little that was considered immoral 50 years ago is considered immoral today.  What ever happened to Biblical concepts such as “admonish”, “reprove”, “rebuke”, or “correction?”  Those who stand by Christian self-discipline are derisively called “fundamentalists”, “extremists”, or “haters.”  Christian values have deferred to a declining culture of extreme permissiveness and out of control tolerance. 

Here is this culture’s mandate:  We certainly don’t want to offend anyone by calling them out on their crude, rude, or otherwise disturbing behavior.  After all, we all do it. In fact, even the Bible says [out of context] “judge not” and “take the log out of your own eye.”  Anything else is immoral.  Who are we to judge others?  And above all, don’t report it to any authorities.  We don’t want to be accused of being a snitch or a hater.

The above paragraph reflects some of the reasons we have become what we are as a culture.  Yup, we all “mind our own business.”  That mindset is a convenient excuse to not be bothered. 

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Women’s “Me, Too” Marches Glorified by Media…

Tens of thousands of American women demonstrated in a dozen or more US cities today to promote….what?

Here is some of what I heard.  They demonstrated on behalf of:

  • Gender equality
  • Abortion rights
  • Respect in the workplace
  • The new religion of “judge less”
  • Boundless immigration
  • Equality for everyone
  • Anti-Trump

And now I present my likely misogynist, hateful, judgmental thoughts on the demonstrators’ wish list.

Many demonstrators appeared to participate out of ignorance and were attracted by a party atmosphere.  The issues expressed seemed to come from an attitude of entitlement, selfishness, and gross sexism.  They appeared to be following in the mold of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations as if no other lives matter, no one else suffers hardship at the hand of government or business, and any sense of morality is now off limits.

The demands represented by these demonstrations were as disparate and ill-conceived as the “Occupy Wall Street One Percenters” movement.  Both clearly reflected the Communist agenda:  Equal pay and equal outcomes for everyone; disregard for religion, religious morality, substituted with an “anything goes – don’t judge anything” amorality; irrelevance of national borders and immigration for everyone, and a one-world utopia.

The hypocrisy of all of this is stupefying.  “Judge less” or “don’t judge” is great as long as the people they disagree with are the ones who don’t judge.    Yet these protestors judged their hearts out against those they disagree with.

And the “babes” who virtually sell their bodies and souls to get ahead in their chosen professions and work places are disgusting to me.  Then they cry foul 10, 20, 30 years later after they earned their filthy lucre.  Respect in the workplace indeed.  They sold out!  The women were enablers.  They allowed it to happen due to their own greed and lack of morality.

One young lady was asked why she was there:  “I’m for equality.”  That’s it.  Equality in what?  Jobs?  Pay?  Age of death?  Sports?  IQ?  Motivation?  Body parts?  Gender?

And many are so blind, dumb, or selfish in the face of the reality that abortion is murder, yet they continue to insist on still MORE “abortion rights.”  Sick.

The giveaway that the huge majority of demonstrators were comprised of liberal democrats, socialists, Communists, and America haters was that there was a “we hate Trump” thread running throughout their proceedings.

And of coarse the media glorifies this madness.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Here’s where we are with name calling and slander

We have reached the point where name-calling has become vicious slander verging on libel.  It is the tool of choice of the left, progressives and those who abhor the heritage, exceptionalism and success of our nation.

We have reached the point where if we call a black man “a murderer” for murdering someone, we are a racist.

If we call a Muslim “a terrorist” for committing an act of terror by blowing up a train  station, we are an Islamophobe.

If we point out the fact that hundreds of  illegal immigrants commit violent crimes, we are labelled “haters.”

The most recent example is when George Stephanopoulos asked Donald Trump “are you a racist?”  Why did he ask this question?  Because President Trump had the audacity to propose that our immigration policies should favor immigrants from nations that have something to offer this country.  It is a fact that immigrants from many African and Caribbean nations will further stress our already overburdened health, welfare, education, and employment systems.  In fact, haplessly inviting the poverty-stricken, illiterate, and anti-Americans of the world  will make matters worse for millions of existing US citizens who are already having difficulty finding jobs, getting a decent education, and securing needed health services.

In other words, the corrupt, biased media and leftist politicians don’t abide facts.  They would rather gain points by lying, slandering  and distorting what is said by those with whom they disagree.

Next time a reporter asks an insulting question like “are you a racist”, the response should be “why did you shoot your mother?”

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Liberty, license, responsibility and sin…

I’ll cut to the chase.  Liberty without responsibility is license.  License is sin.  And sin is an ignored and forgotten component of American culture.

Question:  Do you believe that “morality” in the United States has declined over the past 50 years?  If so, why?

Detour.  What is “sin?”  Sin is a word that most people in this generation do not want to discuss or even think about.  Heck, most churches don’t even discuss this anymore, never mind suggest we shouldn’t do it.  Gosh, that would be mean spirited and in-Christian if Churches discussed sin. 

Oh how far we have fallen.

Quick fact:  In Christianity, if sin is not acknowledged there can be no grace.  If you think yourself a “Christian” and ignore or dismiss the concept of “sin”, you need to question your salvation.  Christianity requires the acknowledgement of sin, the heartfelt regret for that sin, and a request to God for the forgiveness of that sin.  Then the grace of God will be freely given.  Even saved people sin.  It is the regret for that sin and request for forgiveness that distinguishes the Christian from others.

Ok, back to “what is sin?”

For there to be “sin”, there has to be a standard against which a sin is determined.  Therefore, “sin” is falling short of meeting certain standards.  There are two types of standards:  Natural law, which is the belief system built into all of us that gives us a general sense of right and wrong.  I’m not talking about “cultural” standards, no.  This is more of a universal, inbred sense that all people have to some degree – some possessing the sense more than others.  An example is the universal standard of not killing another person for no apparent reason.  This form of sin is rather vague and undefined.  It can be easily twisted and perverted by cultural “group think” because of its vagueness.  Sensing this “natural law” sin is like tuning into a very weak radio station.  Islamic cultural behavior is one example of cultural “group think” that masks and overwhelms adherence to natural law.  There is often a lot of interference coming from stronger influences that will mask the weaker signal.

Then there are the more explicit standards established by God as expressed through the Bible.  The Ten Commandments are the best known.  But there are dozens of others stated and exemplified throughout Scripture that reflect God’s standards for us.  Gender affiliation, marriage, faithfulness, loving kindness, honesty, humility, and dozens more are given to us.

The extent to which we ignore or violate these standards is “sin.”  Of course there is an array of sexual perversions that warrant the sin label.  But by no means do these comprise even most. 

Some apparent sins aren’t necessarily so.  For example,  “anger” is often a sin.  But there is such a thing as “righteous anger”.  Even God has shown anger.  But such “righteous” anger has two distinguishing characteristics:  1)  It is temporary, and 2) It is for an excellent, or righteous, reason.  What might be a righteous reason to be angry?  If someone beat you up for no apparent reason or if you were given a speeding ticket for going 35 in a 40 mph zone.  God’s righteous anger has occurred when some people willfully abuse Him and his commands.

Having the behavioral boundaries of “sin” give us absolute freedom within those self-imposed boundaries.

Now, to the problem.  Over the past several decades a greater and greater percentage of the US population have been ignoring God’s primary means of communicating with us:  The Bible:  God’s written advice, commands, and standards for us.  Consequently, more and more people have less and less understanding of the standards God has for us.  The end result is we are losing – or have lost – any sense of “sin” because we have become ignorant or deniers of God’s standards.  Sin?  What’s that and who cares?

All we have left is the faint, tiny inner voice of natural law.  And that natural law is virtually drowned out by the noise of the culture claiming “anything goes.”  We had liberty when we had standards.  Do we have more liberty now?  No.  Ignoring God’s standards removes personal responsibility which creates license.  The concept of “sin” is virtually eliminated because there is little left of standards for sin to be noticed or declared.

Has this new found license created the ultimate freedom and liberty?  No.  It is the exact opposite.  The result is moral anarchy.  There is no predictability as to what is right or wrong anymore.  What we used to believe was wrong, or “sin” is now promoted by the culture as ok; maybe superior according to some.  And what we believed was right is now against the culture and increasingly against the law.  Refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay, same sex couple comes to mind.

The sense of right and wrong is becoming increasingly whimsical, subject to popular fads and preferences.

Churches cannot assume people understand, never mind agree with, the concept of sin anymore.  It is as dead a concept as cursive handwriting is to third graders.

I don’t know that anything short of another supernatural “great awakening” can bring us back to the Bible and God’s standards for right and wrong – and recognizing the very real concept of sin so that God may once again pour his grace out upon the sinner.

Monday, December 18, 2017

“Beams” are neutering Christian morality

Another Biblical verse misapplied out of context

3“Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when the beam is in your own eye? 5You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”


I recently attended a beautiful Christmas musical event at a local Presbyterian Church affiliated with the liberal PCUSA denomination.  After the program’s conclusion as I was passing through the narthex I paused to ask one of the parishioners a question or two about the church.  I already knew its liberal denominational affiliation. But I know that sometimes local churches deviate a bit from precise denominational positions and wanted to know where this church stood.

I asked, “is this church considered ‘liberal’, ‘middle of the road’, or ‘conservative’?”  She answered “middle of the road – it follows the guidance of the denomination.”  I followed up with, “how would you describe “middle of the road.”  She answered, “well, we don’t discuss the social issues like gay marriage and homosexuality.  We understand this area around here isn’t very culturally diverse.” 

From that brief exchange I gleaned that her church doesn’t discuss those topics because the area is too conservative for a liberal church to discuss the liberal biases of the church, so they just avoid discussing the topics.  Yup, the parishioners and area are just not open minded and tolerant enough to sing the praises of GLTBQ options.  Bottom line:  The culture dictates the teaching.  Don’t offend anyone.

A bit later I discussed my brief encounter with a Christian friend.  After mentioning the parishioner’s response to my question, I added, “it appears that Presbyterian Church prefers to ignore a fairly large segment of Biblical teaching.  She responded, “is that a beam I see in your eye?”

Wow!  Well, shut my mouth.  I just heard a stereotypical response reflecting the attitude of todays modern church.  It is this:  Because we all have “beams” in our eyes, we dare not discuss the value of Biblical morality or the role of the church in admonishing immorality.   No sirree, Bob.  It is all “grace” and good times. 

This attitude ignores quite a lot.  It ignores half of what the Bible teaches and what the churches used to teach, but teaches no more:  The relationship between sin and grace.

Without acknowledgment of sin there can be no grace.  We dare not discuss the types of sins we commit for two reasons:  1)  We all have ‘beams’ in our eyes, and 2) We may offend someone, and the Lord knows, we can. not. do. that!

So let’s ignore sin – let’s not discuss it.  It still exists, but there is no need to remind ourselves of it.  Let’s just use the generic term “beam.”

When the Church stops talking about sin, it may as well close its doors – as many are doing.  And we wonder why crime, drug use, and immorality are on the rise.

Are we using our “beams” as a poor excuse to neuter Christian morality?  It appears we are. 

Rather than assume that verse means that we are never to judge because of our own shortcomings, it is better to interpret it as intended.  The essence is:  (Interpretation 1) Clean up our own act before we are critical of another’s act.  It does NOT mean (Interpretation 2)":Hey dude, keep quiet about that trash, we’re all doing it. 

Liberal churches and liberal Christian thought are now preferring Interpretation 2.

Oh, by the way, let’s forget about these verses:

Romans 15:14

And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.

Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Psalm 141:5

Let the righteous smite me in kindness and reprove me; It is oil upon the head; Do not let my head refuse it, For still my prayer is against their wicked deeds.

Luke 17:3

"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

1 Thessalonians 5:14

We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Attempted Deceptions by an Islamic Apologist

We know by now that the primary Islamic texts, the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, as well as their interpretation by the vast majority of Islamic scholars today promote hatred and violent jihad against both less devout Muslims as well as non-Muslim infidels.

Also, anyone who does any internet research is also aware that Muslims and their apologists (Muslim and non-Muslim) have numerous websites that go to great lengths to attempt to discredit the current interpretation of very clear verses in Islamic texts that promote such violent supremacism.

One such verse among dozens of others that say basically the same thing, is this:

“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them…”

What follows is a demonstration of how one apologist for Islam attempts to make us believe that Islam is something other than  what Muslims believe it is.

Here is the introduction of an article by that very title:

Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them

Posted on February 18, 2015 by David Gerald Fincham

The phrase “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” appears more than once in the Qur'an. Many critics of Islam, and a few Muslim extremists, taking this phrase out of context, conclude that the Qur'an encourages Muslim violence towards non-Muslims. The following explanation of the true interpretation of the phrase is taken from the introduction to the English translation of the Qur'an by M.A.S Abdul Haleem.

David Fincham devotes four typewritten pages to explain the “true” interpretation of the phase. His thesis is that the expression is taken out of context and has very narrow application that does not apply to Christians and Jews and applies ONLY to situations where Muslims feel threatened by forces they believe are opposed to Islam.

I did not include his entire four page analysis here, but if you are curious it is located HERE. He goes by the name of “Walk Tall, Hang Loose” on his blog.

He concludes with this…

Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point.

He basically asserts that we can’t believe what we read in Islamic texts – that doing so is careless and mean-spirited.

Gosh!  It’s too bad Muslims and their leaders and scholars don’t listen to David.

David, like many other apologists for Islam, attempt to apply the type of exegesis and interpretation methodology to Islamic texts as Christians would to Christian texts.  It doesn’t work that way.

He asserts the “context” of the statement “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is crucial. He IGNORES the fact that the traditional order of Qur’anic verses is from longest to shortest. Some later translations were put in supposed chronological order.

How can “context” be important when the order is arbitrarily “longest to shortest?”

In addition to that glaring faux pas, I responded by email to David pointing out a number of other problems with his wishful thinking…

My initial response

Muslims kill other Muslims and non-Muslims in great numbers - in the name of Islam - and for the sake of Allah - every day. Jihad is Islam. No contrived "moral equivalency" please. There is none. The Ummah of Islam, its predominant leaders and a great majority of its adherents favor jihad against the infidel based on orthodox Islamic doctrine. The naïve attempt to gloss over these facts.

Here is “Walk Tall, Hang Loose’s” (WTHL) reply:

Mr. Abdul Haleem whose English translation of the Quran I quote above is a professor of Islamic studies at the University of London. He knows more about orthodox Islam than you do. I have lived in a Muslim country and have had many Muslim friends and colleagues. I know far more about what the great majority of Muslims favor than you do, and I assure you they are not thinking about 'jihad against the infidel'. By the way, the 'unbelievers' in the Quran are the polytheistic religious leaders who persecuted Mohammad and his followers. Christians and Jews are not 'infidels'.

You have been confused by thinking that the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia is 'orthodox Islam'. It is not, it is an extreme intolerant and violent sect which is behind the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Isis, the Saudi Arabian bombing of the Shia Muslims in Yemen, and the terrorist attacks in Europe by local Muslims who have been radicalized in mosques funded by Saudi Arabia and by their Saudi Arabian Imams.

My reply

Point 1: Muslims try to follow the example of Muhammad. If Muhammad were alive today, he would be the perfect Wahhabi, or worse (or "better" from Islamic perspective.) Islamic doctrine teaches that Muhammad was the most perfect human. Go figure.

Point 2: You've known "many Muslim friends and colleagues." Great. Many "Muslim friends next door" or "at work" who were thought to be your "typical 'moderate' Muslims" have proven themselves to be anything but. Many atrocities, aka "jihad attacks" were carried out by the "nice Muslim next door" or "at work."

Point 3: A significant Islamic doctrine is taqiyya. Being as well versed as you claim, I'm sure you know all about that.

Point 4: Islamic doctrine also promotes the idea of not making friends with the infidel. Be a friend outwardly but not inwardly. They avoid true assimilation. I'm sure you know all about that as well, but fail to acknowledge it to yourself.

Point: 5: Of course there are apostate Muslims who disbelieve or do not practice the mainstream doctrines I mentioned above. But I must ask myself why they persist in identifying as "Muslim" if they 1) do not wish to emulate the life of Muhammad, or even believe in the actions he lived by and promoted, 2) why they don't believe in the other widely believed in and practiced orthodox doctrines I described.

Point 6: Zuhdi Jasser in the US is a perfect example of a self-proclaimed "devout Muslim" who interprets NONE of the Islamic trilogy as being anti-freedom, anti-jihad, anti-woman, anti-gay, or anti-infidel. But for some perhaps "strange to you" reasons, none of the mosques in the US endorse his apostate version of Islam.

Point 7: The interpretation of Islamic scripture is manifest in the actions taught and promoted by the great preponderance of Islamic leaders and scholars, and faithfully carried out by untold numbers of devout Muslim believers. Today, those actions speak volumes of how Islamic scripture is interpreted.

Point 8: True, the closer a non-Muslim is to practicing Muslims, the more he will be deceived ty them. You apparently are a case in point.

WTHL reply

What is your source for 'Islamic doctrine'? I can only think that it is a Wahhabi source. Mainstream Islamic scholars denounce Wahhabism in strong terms, as a 'vile sect', 'Satanic faith' and 'a source of global terrorism'. Wahhabis denounce other Muslims as takfir (apostates) and justify killing them. A Wahhabi would never say Muhammad was a perfect human being, because that would make him equal to God.

To find out what the preponderance of Islamic scholars say about the Wahhabi-inspired jihadi groups read their letter to Al-Baghdadi http://www.lettertobaghdadi...

My Reply

Sources: Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and most of all: ISLAMIC ACTIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

"Wahhabi would never say..." It sounds like you are equating the Islamic interpretation of Muhammad with Christian doctrine.  There is no "man-God" in Islam. Islam has no "perfect" human being equivalent to Jesus Christ.   No, there is NO chance of equating Muhammad with Allah. The closest Islam gets is Muhammad - not "perfect", but the "most perfect" human to be emulated in all ways. This is not the view of only Wahhabis.  It is an orthodox Islamic teaching.

WTHL Reply

You continue to make assertions without backing them up with evidence. If you want to cite the Qu'ran or the hadith you have to give the exact verse, or no-one can check what you say. Since I doubt you can read classical Arabic, you also need to say which English translation you are using.

For example: you say that it is a Muslim doctrine that Muhammad is the most perfect human. I have never read or heard a Muslim saying that. What they do say is that all the prophets are of equal importance.

You say that most Muslims favor jihad against the unbelievers. That is certainly incorrect since Islam is based on the Qu'ran and as I have have explained in my post the Qu'ran clearly permits only defensive war. The only Islamic actions around the world today which promote offensive jihad against non-Muslims or Muslims of other sects are those inspired by the Wahhabis.

You say that if Muhammad were alive today he would be a Wahhabi. What do you mean by that, and how do you know?

I suspect you have never talked to a Muslim about his faith, and that what you say is picked up from some Islamophobic website, which you believe because you want to believe it - why, I have no idea.

My reply

Why do you continue to be blind to what is going on in the Islamic world? Why are you basing your view of the Qur'an as a "wishful thinker" unless you, yourself desire to promote deception as well?

Evidence of the truth of what I say is all around, with 10's of thousands of victims of Islamic jihad - millions if you count all of Islamic history, yet you continue to deny the reality.

I'm done here. A time waster.

clip_image001 David Fincham


Yes, indeed.  Continuing to debate such person is a time waster.  The only possible reason why the US is spending BILLIONS in defense against Muslim attacks on our homeland is that there is some, apparently elusive, common denominator to the motive behind the attacks.  We do not want to and consequently FAIL to acknowledge that the common denominator is Islam, Islamic texts, and their interpretation by the great preponderance of Islamic leaders.

David Fincham (Walk Tall, Hang Loose) and other Islamic apologists ignore or gloss over the following realities:

1. Christian exegesis cannot be used to interpret Islamic texts - context is missing in most situations in Islamic texts.

2. The vast majority of Islamic scholars interpret Islamic texts in the manner they are written. The evidence of this? The widespread and nearly universal jihad engaged by Islamic nations against the West as well as the hundreds of Islamic terror groups that exist in nearly every nation around the globe.

3. Islamic texts and Islamic culture have inculcated within Muslims a predisposition to hate and to believe that other faiths are inferior; that Islam is supreme and must dominate by any and all means.

4. Many considered to be “moderate” Muslims have turned out to be anything but.

5. Moderate self-proclaimed “devout” Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser who talk and act as if they have dismissed the majority of Islamic texts and doctrines are considered by the vast majority of Islamic leaders in US Mosques as apostate. No supposed “Christian” who dismissed the majority of the Bible and Christian doctrine would in fact be anything but “apostate.”

6. The person of Muhammad is considered by Muslims as the most perfect human being.  That is indisputable fact.  Yet he was a child molester, warrior, assassin, and likely an addict dependent on drugs to induce his psychoses. Islamic doctrine urges followers to emulate his life in every way possible. In terms of Christian morality, Muhammad was Satanic.

Such men as Fincham likely have the ear of many of our politicians and media. They are effective deceivers on behalf of Islam. I don’t know whether Fincham is Muslim or not.  But if he is, he practices their fine art of taqiyya well. If he isn’t, he is just another leftist liberal academic that is so full of his “intellect” that he ignores what is really going on in the world.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

White Christians now a minority…

Wow.  Finally we white, Christian folk get to experience the perks of “affirmative action legislation.”  Or not.

But we DO get to feel the racial and religious prejudice and slander.

By the way.  Affirmative action is racist, Christaphobic and especially misandrist (prejudice or unfair treatment of males.) 

White Christian males are especially in the minority and subject to extreme prejudice.  We are especially due an extra portion of government’s racist, sexist, Christaphobic affirmative action protections and perks.  When do I get my government rent check and my preferential, racist, sexist business loan?

I think I might go out and protest.  See ya.

This from the Associated Press:




NEW YORK (AP) -- The share of Americans who identify as white and Christian has dropped below 50 percent, a transformation fueled by immigration and by growing numbers of people who reject organized religion altogether, according to a new survey released Wednesday.

Christians overall remain a large majority in the U.S., at nearly 70 percent of Americans. However, white Christians, once predominant in the country's religious life, now comprise only 43 percent of the population, according to the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, a polling organization based in Washington. Four decades ago, about eight in 10 Americans were white Christians.

The change has occurred across the spectrum of Christian traditions in the U.S., including sharp drops in membership in predominantly white mainline Protestant denominations such as Presbyterians and Lutherans; an increasing Latino presence in the Roman Catholic Church as some non-Hispanic white Catholics leave; and shrinking ranks of white evangelicals, who until recently had been viewed as immune to decline.

The trends identified in the survey are fueling anxiety about the place of Christians in society, especially among evangelicals, alarmed by support for gay marriage and by the increasing share of Americans - about one-quarter - who don't identify with a faith group. President Donald Trump, who repeatedly promised to protect the religious liberty of Christians, drew 80 percent of votes by white evangelicals, a constituency that remains among his strongest supporters.

About 17 percent of Americans now identify as white evangelical, compared to 23 percent a decade ago, according to the survey. Membership in the conservative Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant group, dropped to 15.2 million last year, its lowest number since 1990, according to an analysis by Chuck Kelley, president of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

"So often, white evangelicals have been pointing in judgment to white mainline groups, saying when you have liberal theology you decline," said Robert Jones, chief executive of PRRI. "I think this data really does challenge that interpretation of linking theological conservatism and growth."

The PRRI survey of more than 100,000 people was conducted from January 2016 to January of this year and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.4 percentage points. Previous surveys had found that the Protestant majority that shaped the nation's history had dropped below 50 percent sometime around 2008. The PRRI poll released Wednesday included a more in-depth focus on race and religion. Jones said growth among Latino Christians, and stability in the numbers of African-American Christians, had partly obscured the decline among white Christians.

The survey also found that more than a third of all Republicans say they are white evangelicals, and nearly three-quarter identify as white Christians. By comparison, white Christians have become a minority in the Democratic Party, shrinking from 47 percent a decade ago, to 29 percent now. Forty percent of Democrats say they have no religious affiliation.

Among American Catholics, 55 percent now identify as white, compared to 87 percent 25 years ago, amid the growing presence of Latino Catholics, according to the report. Over the last decade, the share of white Catholics in the U.S. population dropped from 16 percent to 11 percent. Over the same period, white mainline Protestants declined from 18 percent to 13 percent of all Americans.