You like that title?  It’s not original.  It comes from the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) [21:3]:

They who upon pretence of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.  (Romans 6:1, 2; Galatians 5:13; 2 Peter 2:18, 21)

In case you complain about those Baptist boogie men, as if whatever experience you’ve had or have been deceived into thinking you have had as an excuse that could nullify scriptural teaching, something almost identical is in the Westminster Confession of Faith (20:3).

I’m pointing out this one item in the the LBC and WCF because it is the historic position of the church, it isn’t new, the contradiction of it is a big problem today, and it also disclaims the idea that this is a pet peeve or a recent obsession.  I also like the language, “pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel,” and, “destroy the end of Christian liberty.”

Using foul language or gestures is a pretence of Christian liberty.  You don’t have liberty to do that as a Christian.  That isn’t salvation.   The female showing her naked thighs is a pretence of Christian liberty.  Playing and promoting profane music, worldly and carnal, is a pretence of Christian liberty.  We have liberty to “serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.”  These previous examples in this paragraph and many others represent the perverting “the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction.”

I would add that calling on professing believers to destroy their idols, stop imitating the world, deny worldly lust, abstain from fleshly lust, cover their nakedness, and stop glorying in their shame is not “contrary to the word,” “not contained in it,” or betraying “true liberty of conscience” (LBCF 21.3).  Contrariwise, God saved us from these things.  The doing of them and claiming Christian liberty is but a pretense.  In other words, it is pretend liberty, concocted in the imagination of the doer by which he or she can live for himself or herself and still call himself or herself a Christian.

Scripture teaches what the LBC calls “liberty of conscience.”  The idea here is that a believer is expressed by the words (21:1), “their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.”  This is still “yielding obedience unto Him.”  It isn’t liberty to sin against God, but to do so with “a childlike love and willing mind.”  It matters why we do what we do.  Subjecting people to other than scriptural mandates inhibits God-honoring motivation for service.

Further investigation into the teaching of scripture upon the conscience reveals that the conscience is in part protected by rare subjugation to merely human ordinances.  Even performing according to Divine design, a conscience will still respond to non-biblical or unbiblical edicts.  A conscience can be harmed by adding to or taking away from what scripture teaches.  Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 for the freedom of conscience.  A pretence of Christian liberty is not that.  A Christian wants his conscience warning him against idolatry, foul language, shameful behavior, nakedness, worldliness, irreverence, and lust.

 In His model prayer, the Lord Jesus Christ gave the pattern of praying, “Thy kingdom come,” an imperative of request.  True believers will ask for God’s kingdom to come.  They want it.

The kingdom of God isn’t some arbitrary kingdom like Vulgaria in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.  It is a particular, defined kingdom.  Jesus is its king already.  It’s not subject to vote.  He’s already got the position and it is a lifetime appointment, which happens to be forever.  If you want in that kingdom, you’ve got to accept His reign in advance.  That means you like it.  You desire it.  You’re asking for it already, can’t wait until it gets here.

Christian girls who post themselves in their daisy dukes on instagram, I can tell you in advance, they won’t like, they don’t like, the kingdom of God.  They want a different kingdom, not one where Jesus Christ reigns.  Problem is that His is the only kingdom.  The end of that model prayer reads:  “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever” (Luke 6:13), which is also a quotation of 1 Chronicles 29:11, the whole verse of which says:

Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

I can see the moribund countenance of the professing Christian girl, who was just told she couldn’t bring her shorts with her.  When everyone else breaks into the grand chorus of praise, her lips are frozen.  She can only sing if self-care or self-love are included, and then she would rock.  At the prospect of the actual kingdom, she would ghost God if she could, because He won’t let her dress like she wants in His kingdom.  At last check, she still likes His air and food provision though.

One of the great losses of not praying like Jesus said is the absence of praying for the kingdom of God.  Jesus is already reigning at the right hand of the Father in the midst of His enemies (Psalm 110:2).  Everyone added to the kingdom in this era is giving in to that reign, which means submitting in a biblical church.  It is an actual submission, not one like where you just put an X in the submission box, registering intellectual assent.  Jesus threw the keys to the kingdom to the church, and you don’t have to be in it.  You can go ahead and take the temporal life you have as everything you’re ever going to get.

I recognize that most churches today don’t give the impression to people that they are already citizens of a kingdom, which means a rule is presently occurring.  They are under a rule.  This is why in the description of overseers or pastors, it says that they “rule” as the accurate, true verb of job description.  Jesus is ruling, but they are carrying it on for Him as if it were Him.

Daisy Duke Christian imagines Vulgaria like the ink blot rorschach for the kingdom of God.  Superimposed is “the grace of God.”  God’s grace allows God’s kingdom to be Vulgaria.  Hey, I want in now!  This is all fiction hatched in an imagination.

Daisy Duke Christian doesn’t evangelize.  She thinks by being “nice,” that is evangelism.  She’s “nice” to everyone, while they die and go to Hell.  They are in turn “nice” back to her, and everyone is a big nice happy family in the kingdom of Vulgaria.  It is all a lie.

What I’m writing is also true of Nashville Profane Music Christian.  None of these are going to be in the kingdom of God.  They wouldn’t even like it.  If it showed up right now, they would reject it, unless they found out the alternative would be going to Hell.  Then they would begrudgingly sign on to avoid that, hating every moment of it.

God won’t take someone into His kingdom as a hostage with Stockholm syndrome.  Actually, just the reverse is true.  Daisy Duke Christian has developed a psychological affection for her captor, who happens to be the prince of this world.  She’s in bondage and she doesn’t recognize that he is ruling over her.  That’s why she wants to stay, like Lot’s wife looking yearningly toward her own vision of the kingdom, which identically matches the world system.

In one very true sense the kingdom has already started for actual kingdom citizens.  They want to live now like they will for a thousand years after Jesus has made His enemies His footstool.  They want to be with Him in church, His church, not the phantom church of pop Christianity, which not only allows but most often encourages daisy dukes.  Those who don’t like the actual kingdom of Jesus Christ now aren’t real citizens.  And there are no green cards.  They will never get a temporary visa.  Believing in Jesus does mean believing in Jesus, which its clear through the whole Bible means that you want Him as your King.

The Bible doesn’t make a point blank statement to describe the people easiest in the world to fool — “they are. . . .”  You can cull this information from a cumulative view of all of scripture though.  On top of that, it has been my observation.

Government response to COVID-19 challenged Christian thinking on Romans 13 and other like New Testament passages.  In other terms, it sharpened ecclesiology.  One might call it a test or trial that aided sanctification.  In the middle of this test, growth occurs.  A church might look and act differently in a matter of months and say something it never said before that seems to contradict former statements and stated doctrines or practices.  It might sound like it is contradicting itself.  Everyone and every church needs the opportunity to change.  That’s even a reason why the Jezebel of Revelation 2:20 was given space to repent, including by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Through all my thirty-three years of living in California, I often heard the word “sustainability.”  It means “to exist constantly.”  Only God has existed constantly (Psalm 90:2).  God alone sustains the whole universe, all matter and space, and then the earth.  Speaking of Jesus, John writes (John 1:3):

In the mid 1960s, Walter Martin became the first “Bible Answer Man,” exposing cults and false religions from all over the world.  In 1989, when Martin died, Hank Hanegraff became the new “Bible Answer Man,” sort of like the line of the Dread Pirate Roberts in The Princess Bride.  Someone else can become “The Bible Answer Man.”  It’s passed down.  You might not in fact be “The Bible Answer Man.”  It’s just a title.  You’re actually Joe Slobotnick from Walla Walla, otherwise known as The Bible Answer Man.

What’s the point of kneeling at the flag and during the national anthem if it isn’t disrespect? Of course it is disrespect. The people doing it say that they are misunderstood. A lot is written about this, so it’s not hard to hear the point of kneeling.

The kneelers are protesting systemic police brutality against black people in the United States. The flag represents the United States. At a time to show respect, they choose to show disrespect to make a point.

Many, who don’t kneel, but support the kneeling, agree. Probably not intended as a point of irony, Angels manager Joe Maddon, speaking of one of his players who kneeled, said, “I’m very proud that he stood up for his beliefs. It’s not easy to do that. A young man like that.” As an aside, I would content it’s getting a lot easier to kneel. In general, the media, the Democrat party, and the woke crowd all support it and even worse. What belief was he “standing,” albeit kneeling, for? Standing when the flag passes is respect. Kneeling is disrespect. People stand for the national anthem out of respect. Someone kneels out of disrespect. Kneelers want to disrespect the flag to make a point.

I could kneel because of abortion.  Someone could kneel because of useless wars.  Someone else could kneel because of the women’s vote.  A woman might keep kneeling until there is a woman president.  Are police being brutal?  Not as a whole, not enough to disrespect the flag over.  It’s also a strange way to protest police brutality.  Everyone is already against police brutality.  Police are against it.  Why disrespect the flag over it?

Gabe Kapler, manager of the A’s, became the first manager or head coach to kneel during the anthem. I’m guessing he checked with management before he did it to be sure he wouldn’t be fired, or he just already knew in Oakland, that would be a net gain for him.

Respect for the flag has associated itself with respect for the military. Why? Is this just something arbitrary? No, there are red stripes on the flag that talk about people dying. Those are almost exclusively military and even police officers. People have died, shed their blood, so that others could live with freedom, including black people. I’m guessing that Kaplan felt a bit awkward after all these years of standing, suddenly kneeling, and thinking about the privileges he has had in living in this country.

In general, I have associated patriotism with standing for the flag, putting my hand over my heart, taking my hat off, looking stedfastly at the flag, and then singing with the national anthem. I think of the veterans who have died. Sometimes my eyes water.

I would agree that the more kneeling there is, the less respect there will be for the flag and for the country. The country itself won’t be worth it anymore to its citizens, not worth fighting for, not worth bleeding for or dying for. The more the kneelers kneel, the less respect I feel for a country that rewards and praises kneelers. It’s working that way with me. I’m looking around for a country I respect more than the United States. I’ll keep living here, but maybe I’ll get to the point where I would rank some other country ahead of the United States for different reasons than a Hollywood actor or actress who threatens to leave everytime a Republican wins the presidency.

There is a threat to a country when its people don’t respect it anymore. It won’t be as good or nice a place as it once was to live. As well, children won’t grow up with the concept of respect. Their idea of something good is showing disrespect. That is a growing sentiment, it seems, young people who won’t show respect anymore except for themselves.  They don’t respect their parents or almost anything or anyone but themselves.

 If a person knows what it means to disrespect, then it means that he knows what it means to respect.  Young people for instance know when they are being disrespected.  They are masters at that.  It’s a reason why they want boundaries set up against interaction with those who don’t respect most of how they act.

The overall concept of respect is being lost in the country, which starts with God. People don’t respect God. They love themselves. They even think people should love each other. They don’t care about God though, and that’s obvious. Anything bigger than themselves, they don’t tend to respect. When respect for God is lost, then it won’t take long that almost nothing or no one is respectable any more.

With full disclaimer, from my childhood I recall Gilligan and the fearless crew on the uncharted desert isle.  Mr. Howell, the Professor, and Skipper are dressed as women in an attempt to fool some visiting natives looking for a “white goddess” to throw into their volcano.  Not expecting any of those three to pull it off, the Skipper orders first mate, Gilligan, to “dress up like a girl.”  The words since stuck in my brain Gilligan repeated again and again, “You can’t make me!  You can’t make me!  You can’t make me!”  Everyone knows how that ended.

In the flow of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, He preaches the requirement for entrance into His kingdom (5:1-12) and then the present identity on the earth of its citizens, salt and light (5:13-16).  Salt presents the negative identity of influence against decay or corruption (5:13).  Light presents the positive identity of the declaration of God, speaking righteous doctrine and living the righteous life, all in accordance with the kingdom of Jesus Christ (5:14-16).  Saltiness is distinctiveness, the sacred life impeding the profanity of the world, and light provides the revelation of the knowledge of God for others for their salvation and sanctification.  What is the basis for salt and light?  It is the Word of God (5:17-19).