Home » Posts tagged 'politics' (Page 3)

Tag Archives: politics

The Church of Christ: Preach the Word of God, Preach Politics, or Preach Conspiracies?

Preach the Word or Politics?

In 2 Timothy 4:2, the Bible commands: “Preach the Word,” referring to the “all Scripture” of 3:16 with the Greek anaphoric article on the “the” of 2 Timothy 4:2.  God commands His Word to be preached, and nothing else, in the church of Jesus Christ. Does this exclude preaching on political topics?

 

Preach the Word KJV 2 Timothy 4:2

 

Sometimes preaching the Word means preaching what the Word says about politics.  For example, the Bible condemns abortion and sodomy, teaches free market economics and a limited government instead of socialism or communism and an intrusive government, and favors republican government over monarchy or dictatorship.  It is entirely appropriate to preach what Scripture teaches on these and related issues and to make appropriate contemporary application, whether through following what 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2 implies–expositional preaching through entire books of the Bible–or through topical messages on Biblical issues.

 

Do we see preaching on contemporary politics taking place in the New Testament?  Matthew 14:1-4 reads:

 

1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, 2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. 3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.

 

The first Baptist preacher made the clearly true, unquestionably verifiable statement that Herod should not have taken his brother’s wife. We have no other political statements at all from him, and it does not even appear that the Baptist declared the unlawful incest of Herod in a sermon–rather, John “said unto [Herod]” directly what the ruler had unlawfully done, also reproving Herod for all the evils he had done (Luke 3:19). So John made a clear Biblical application of a political matter in a personal way to the ruler in question.

 

What about the Lord Jesus?  Christ called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32). This also was not in a sermon but in response to a question the Lord was asked.  In every recorded sermon the Lord preached, and in all His teaching in the NT, there was nothing about the terrible political things going on in His day—which He could have used His omniscience to describe and warn about with perfect accuracy—but Christ did warn a great deal about false religion, the worst thing that was taking place in first century Palestine (and the worst thing happening in our day).

 

The sermons in Acts contain nothing about the dirty power plays in the Roman empire or other political events.  The closest one gets is Paul proving that he was not a lawbreaker in court settings.  Paul also used his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; Acts 22), so Christians should use the voting rights they have in free nations.

 

So we have one statement from John the Baptist, made directly to Herod and not in a sermon, one word, “fox,” from Christ on politics, here again not in a sermon, and nothing in the apostolic preaching in Acts.  Paul used the political right he had to protect his life and advance the gospel (Acts 22), and also used his citizenship to protect the Philippian jailer and his household from their heroic, selfless, and extremely dangerous act of taking Paul out of prison into the jailer’s home (Acts 16:37).

 

What about the New Testament epistles? In the epistles, there are no warnings about current politics at all.

 

So is it lawful to make application to current political events in sermons? Based on what Christ and the first Baptist practiced, it is certainly lawful.  However, it is also certainly not the emphasis of the New Testament.  The balance found in the NT epistles is to spend 99% of the time on giving people God’s unsearchable truth; when naming evil men and evil deeds to focus on religious corruption; and occasionally as a legitimate application of Scripture to point out the evil in the secular political world.  Indeed, God’s infallible truth, powerfully preached, will do far more long-term good, even politically, than changing God’s pulpit into a place of political commentary.

 

A congregation where people did not know that the Democrat party overwhelmingly opposes religious liberty and promotes abortion and sodomy would be poorly informed.  Application of the Sixth Commandment would properly inform people of the indisputable facts right in the Democrat party platform.  However, a congregation that does not know what the books of Zechariah or Ephesians are about (for example), but hears all sorts of things about contemporary politics from the pulpit, is also not following the New Testament balance.  They should hear far more in the Lord’s house about the Joseph of Genesis than about Joe Biden.

 

It is true that the Old Testament prophets spoke more about the misdeeds of their rulers and of other nations than one finds in the New Testament.  This fact should encourage us to be gracious rather than judging harshly that contemporary politics are alluded to too often by other pastors or other preachers.  However, we should also keep in mind that Israel was a theocratic nation-state–a political nation among other political nations. The king was not just a ruler, but one with a religious position over God’s people. The surrounding nations were not just people groups, but idolatrous enemies trying to destroy the kingdom of God on earth and stop the coming of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s redemptive program by wiping out Israel.  It may therefore be a better comparison if we consider Jeremiah warning the king to submit to Babylon as comparable to the harsh and specific NT warnings against false religion rather than the equivalent of someone preaching about the misdeeds of secular political rulers.

 

Furthermore, speech about political rulers must follow Romans 13:

 

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:7)

 

John the Baptist said nothing disrespectful to Herod.  Even Michael the Archangel did not rail harshly against Satan, who indubitably deserved it (Jude 9).  Even if a secular political ruler is very evil–as most of them are–and very hostile to Christianity–as many of them are–we must show them fear and honor in the same way that we must give them tribute or pay taxes–God requires it.

 

So preaching legitimate applications of Scripture on politics is right, but making politics central to the church is not, nor should the church follow politically conservative heathen in their reviling of those with liberal political views.  Respect is required for all men, and especially for all rulers, even if they personally do not deserve it in the least.  Remember that you don’t deserve respect in and of yourself, either.  You deserve hell fire, but God gave you grace despite your unworthiness.  He calls you to show respect in the same way to unworthy political leaders who He has ordained (Romans 13) for His own ultimate glory and wise purposes.

 

Preach the Word or Conspiratorial Politics?

 

What about political conspiracy theories?  I have already addressed this to an extent in my posts “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.” (My thoughts on the COVID vaccine specifically are here, with some broader comments on medicine here.)

Social media conspiracy theories

 

Notice that what John the Baptist said about Herod was 100% true, credible, and unquestionably verifiable. Herod had taken his brother’s wife and was openly living with her.  The same holds true for the Old Testament prophets. The Moabites had certainly burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime (Amos 2:1).  (Since the New Testament epistles do not deal with any political controversies, they contain no examples here at all, but their silence does still teach us something about proportion, as already noted.)

 

Contrast that with, say, the dangerous semi-religious cult, the QAnon conspiracy, which believes various political leaders in the USA are engaged in pedophilia and Trump was going to expose them and send them to Guantanamo Bay, and made many other false predictions coupled with unfalsifiable affirmations.  Is there a deep state cabal of pedophiles, or whatever other conspiratorial affirmation?  Before someone believes something of this sort on a personal level, he needs to make sure that he has carefully weighed the evidence, not just for such a conspiracy, but against it (Proverbs 18:17) lest he answer a matter before hearing the evidence properly, which is folly and shame (Proverbs 18:13).  If, for example, QAnon is really a movement of Satanic slander, as many born-again Christians affirm, then affirming its truth would be displeasing to the Lord.  Consider the principles in the post “Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories.”  Do my affirmations in favor of the conspiracy meet Biblical standards of evidence?  Certainly conspiracies should not be promoted in the pulpit in Christ’s churches unless they really have extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary assertions.  It was easy to verify that Herod had an unlawful spouse.  He did not deny who his consort was.  It is much harder to prove that a particular person engaged in abominable acts with minors when nobody allegedly involved says it happened, there is no forensic evidence, etc., and nobody seems to care about it except some extremely fringe social media people who have very dubious evidence to back up their expansive claims.

 

Let us imagine that someone at one’s workplace told a lie one time out of every twenty statements that he made.  We would consider such a person to have a severe lying problem.  While conspiracy theories actually have a truth value that is far closer to 0% than to 95%, let’s imagine that a preacher starts preaching political conspiracy theories and is actually correct 95% of the time.  He would still be breaking the Ten Commandments 5% of the time—a grave lying problem.  “Thou shalt not bear false witness” does not have any exception for discussions of politics.  It does not have a 5% exception.  Slander is a grave sin, even if one is slandering a political leader with a terribly anti-Biblical worldview. Slander is still a grave sin, even if one is slandering someone as verifiably crooked as Hillary Clinton.  If she is crooked in one way you are not lying to say it, but if you accuse her of something she did not do it is slander.  Yep, it is still a sin to slander even her.

 

Preacher, let’s be much harsher on ourselves than on others as we evaluate these things, and make sure our own sermons are 100% accurate, respectful, and non-slanderous.  Nevertheless, whoever makes an inaccurate statement, even if he is convinced it is true by slick-sounding misinformation and is sincerely beguiled by enticing words (Colossians 2:4), is still breaking the Ninth Commandment.  We are not to engage in such behavior ourselves, because the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). We are not to tolerate it in our houses, because “he that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight” (Psalm 101:7).  We must not bring it into Christ’s church, because that is the place to preach the infallible truth of the Word (2 Timothy 4:2) as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not the place to preach what is either verifiably false, or even only possibly true but uncertain, or even what is true but is not exposition and application of the Bible.

 

So preach the Word—not politics.  Follow the pattern of the New Testament in how much politics is talked about in church.  It is not 0%, but not that far away.  It is very far from the emphasis.  Following the New Testament pattern both honors Christ, the One who told the church what to preach, and also promotes liberty in the long-term in a far more effective way than an unbiblical lack of balance that turns the Lord’s church into a Super PAC.

 

So preach the Word—not conspiratorial politics, because preaching a conspiracy, unless it is absolute truth, risks committing the grave sin of slander in the place where only what has an infallible “thus saith the Lord” should be proclaimed, for that alone gives glory to Jesus Christ, the great Head of His church.

 

TDR

Fight Google’s Censorship!

Is Google still your default search engine? If so, you are helping an anti-Bible, anti-morality, pro-sodomy, pro-perversion, anti-God company with every search you make.  They also intend to censor you and to eliminate your voice if they can.  For example, if you search for “Homosexuality is wicked,” the top result (as of when I wrote this article) is an article that laughably claims that sodomy is not condemned by Scripture, and other pro-sodomy articles are in the top page of results. If you search on the search engine DuckDuckGo, the top result is an article entitled “Five Biblical Reasons Homosexuality is Worse than Most Other Sins” and practically every other article on the first page is anti-sodomy, with the anti-sodomy articles being stronger against this perversion than the ones on Google. Do you really think that the top results on Google are unbiased, or is Google putting a heavy thumb on the scale? If you search for “scientific creationism” on DuckDuckGo, the first page includes links to the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Neither website is on the first page in a Google search. Do you think that is by chance? If you search for “Hunter Biden China collusion,” the top result on DuckDuckGo is an article from the leading conservative organization National Review entitled “A Collusion Trail: China and the Bidens.” On Google, National Review does not appear anywhere on page one and this article is at the very bottom of page 2. Chance? Oh, no!

 

Google censors Bible truth

 

DuckDuckGo is not specifically conservative–it just doesn’t have the leftist bias of Google. DuckDuckGo just puts up what most people actually are searching for when they do Internet searches. While some interaction with wicked companies is unavoidable, breaking your tie with Google here is easy. Open your “preferences” file in the browser(s) you use right now (it may be some dots in the top right corner of your browser, or it may be in a menu) and change the default search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo. Do it on your phone. Do it on your laptop. Do it on everything. Google wants your data to make money, but it doesn’t want your beliefs. It wants to destroy them. Stop giving Google money with your Internet searches, and resist Google’s censorship of God’s truth. It takes about five minutes. Do it now.

 

TDR

Winning Someone and Winning Over Someone

I was sitting in the doctor’s office today for an appointment for my dad.  I go with him to all his appointments, which are many.  Usually it is also accompanied by medical decisions, such as tweaking a few of his medications, including his insulin intake.  I pulled up today’s list of articles at Realclearpolitics while waitingand one of them was from the New York Times, titled, “Progressives’ Urgent Question: How to Win Over Voters of Color.”  I didn’t immediately read the article, but my mind began weighing the difference between “winning someone” and “winning someone over.”  Were those two different from each other?  I thought so.

Part of what got me thinking about this subject was the consideration of “winning over voters of color.”  What does that mean?  This is the New York Times.  Are voters of color won over in a different way than voters not of color?  Again, is there a difference between winning someone and winning someone over?  The first line of the article reads:

Can progressives win broad numbers of the Black and brown voters they say their policies will benefit most?

The first sentence says “win broad numbers” in contrast to the title, which says, “win over voters of color.”   I’m still suggesting that “win” and “win over” mean something different.  “Winning over” seems to relate to benefits received, so that “slogans and policies that he said threatened the lives of “Black and brown babies”” do not “win over” this constituency.  In this New York mayoral race, the author of the article explains it by saying, “Black people talk about politics in more practical and everyday terms.”  Practical terms are ones that offer immediate physical benefits.
If I’m trying to win someone over, I can do that by offering benefits.  If I’m trying to win someone, I might not offer any benefits, but the truth so as to persuade someone.  I might say, “You’ll suffer more and you’ll lose physical benefits, especially in the short term, but you will believe and do what is true and right.”  “Winning over” uses every possible advantage, profit, and reward to gain the support of someone.  It’s tempting to win someone over, because you’ve now got them on your side, if you do.  In the above illustration, they’ll vote for you, if you win them over.  They want the benefits you’re promising, so you’re trading their advocacy for your assistance and their welfare.
One frustration of progressives is poor people  who won’t be won over by promises of short term physical advantage.  Instead, these poor ignorantly cling to their religion.  They’ve been won by an idea or a belief instead of being won over by a material thing.
I’m not saying that the truth alone will win someone.  A person wants to know he’s loved.  For the person being won, however, the truth should reign.  He should question someone’s attempt to win him over with tangible benefits.  He should embrace the persuasion of truth.  Even if heaven and earth pass away, God’s Words will not pass away.  As Job said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him” (Job 13:15).  Being slain won’t win someone over, but Job was still won, because of the character and nature of God.
Evangelism isn’t winning someone over.  It is winning someone.

Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories

I have been thinking about this since writing my post on getting vaccinated for COVID and also my post “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.”  I am not writing this to rehash the contents of those posts.  I would encourage those who disagreed–and those who agreed–with the posts to consider the following Biblical principles before we are convinced by or share as true any conspiracy.

1.) Have I examined both sides of the case for the alleged conspiracy?

Prov. 18:13  He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Prov. 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Before telling others, spreading on social media, or in any other way adopting or encouraging others to adopt a conspiracy as true, have I carefully examined both sides of the issue? Have I only read people who agree with the conclusion I am predisposed to, or have I read not just arguments for the conspiracy, but also strong arguments against it, and can I refute the arguments against it? If people challenge my belief in the conspiracy, do I take it personally and react to them emotionally–so that, perhaps, they are not even willing to bring problems with my view, and I place myself in an echo chamber where only those who agree with me are willing to say anything–or do I evaluate what contrary opinions say rationally and dispassionately?

If we do not do this, and promote something which is false because we have not read nor refuted the arguments for the contrary view, it is shame and folly.

2.) Have I exercised great care in my investigation?

Deut. 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain …

Job 29:16 [T]he cause which I knew not I searched out.

Have I made sure that sources that allegedly prove the conspiracy are not taken out of context? Am I looking at the original source, or what someone said that someone said that someone said?  Can I provide a rational mechanism for how what the conspiracy says happened could have taken place, and can I show that other, simpler or less extraordinary explanations fail?  Are the sources reliable ones?  Do I know the bias of the sources I am citing?  We should be very, very careful before assuming a testimonial, a YouTube video, or some other source that would not make it in a high-school research paper or on Wikipedia is giving us the truth while published, peer-reviewed results by people with tremendous knowledge of the field they are writing about are telling us falsehoods.  It is not impossible, but if we are going to make an extraordinary claim like this we need extraordinary evidence.

If we do not follow the two principles above we risk getting taken advantage of by shysters, con-men, and other liars.  We risk bringing reproach to the name of Christ when we utter falsehoods as Christians.  We can put at risk our lives, health, and livelihoods, and the lives, health, and livelihoods of others.

Consider also many of the principles in the Westminster Larger Catechism on the Ninth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”:

Question 144

What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?

The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, (Zech. 8:16) and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own; (3 John 12) appearing and standing for the truth; (Prov. 31:8–9) and from the heart, (Ps. 15:2) sincerely, (2 Chron. 19:9) freely, (1 Sam. 19:4–5) clearly, (Josh. 7:19) and fully, (2 Sam. 14:18–20) speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, (Lev. 19:15, Prov. 14:5,25) and in all other things whatsoever; (2 Cor. 1:17–18, Eph. 4:25) a charitable esteem of our neighbours; (Heb. 6:9, 1 Cor. 13:7) loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; (Rom 1:8, 2 John 4, 3 John 3–4) sorrowing for, (2 Cor. 2:4, 2 Cor. 12:21) and covering of their infirmities; (Prov. 17:9, 1 Pet. 4:8) freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, (1 Cor. 1:4–5,7, 2 Tim. 1:4–5) defending their innocency; (1 Sam. 22:14) a ready receiving of a good report, (1 Cor. 13:6–7) and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, (Ps. 15:3) concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers, (Prov. 25:23) flatterers, (Prov. 26:24–25) and slanderers; (Ps. 101:5) love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; (Prov. 22:1, John 8:49) keeping of lawful promises; (Ps. 15:4) studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report. (Phil. 4:8)

Question 145

What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, (1 Sam. 17:28, 2 Sam. 16:3, 2 Sam. 1:9,10,15–16) especially in public judicature; (Lev. 19:15, Hab. 1:4) giving false evidence, (Prov. 19:5, Prov. 6:16,19) suborning false witnesses, (Acts 6:13) wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, out-facing and overbearing the truth; (Jer. 9:3,5, Acts 24:2,5, Ps. 12:3–4, Ps. 52:1–4) passing unjust sentence, (Prov. 17:15, 1 Kings 21:9–14,10–11,13) calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; (Isa. 5:23) forgery, (Ps. 119:69, Luke19:8, Luke 16:5–7) concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, (Lev. 5:1, Deut. 13:8, Acts 5:3,8–9, 2 Tim. 4:16) and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, (1 Kings1:6, Lev. 19:17) or complaint to others; (Isa. 59:4) speaking the truth unseasonably, (Prov. 29:11) or maliciously to a wrong end, (1 Sam. 22:9–10, Ps. 52:1–5) or perverting it to a wrong meaning, (Ps. 56:5, John 2:19, Matt. 26:60–61) or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; (Gen. 3:5, Gen. 26:7,9) speaking untruth, (Isa. 59:13) lying, (Lev. 19:11, Col. 3:9) slandering, (Ps. 50:20) backbiting, (James 4:11, Jer. 38:4) talebearing, (Lev. 19:16) whispering, (Rom. 1:29–30) scoffing, (Gen. 21:9, Gal. 4:29) reviling, (1 Cor. 6:10) rash, (Matt. 7:1) harsh, (Acts 28:4) and partial censuring; (Gen. 38:24, Rom. 2:1) misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; (Neh. 6:6–8, Rom. 3:8, Ps. 69:10, 1 Sam. 1:13–15, 2 Sam. 10:3) flattering, (Ps. 12:2–3) vain-glorious boasting; (2 Tim. 3:2) thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; (Luke 18:9,11, Rom. 12:16, 1 Cor. 4:6, Acts 12:22, Exod. 4:10–14) denying the gifts and graces of God; (Job 27:5,6, Job 4:6) aggravating smaller faults; (Matt. 7:3–5) hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; (Prov. 28:13, Prov. 30:20, Gen. 3:12–13, Jer. 2:35, 2 Kings 5:25, Gen. 4:9) unnecessary discovering of infirmities; (Gen. 9:22, Prov. 25:9–10) raising false rumors, (Exod. 23:1) receiving and countenancing evil reports, (Prov. 29:12) and stopping our ears against just defense; (Acts 7:56–57, Job 31:13–14) evil suspicion; (1 Cor. 13:5, 1 Tim. 6:4) envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, (Numb. 11:29, Matt. 21:15) endeavoring or desiring to impair it, (Ezra 4:12–13) rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; (Jer. 48:27) scornful contempt, (Ps. 35:15–16,21, Matt. 27:28–29) fond admiration; (Jude 16, Acts 12:22) breach of lawful promises; (Rom. 1:31, 2 Tim. 3:3) neglecting such things as are of good report, (1 Sam. 2:24) and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name. (2 Sam. 13:12–13)

If we consider the two questions at the beginning of this post, and the principles found in the Ninth Commandment, we will in a greater way glorify the Lord.  Let’s make sure we do this before we adopt, promote, share with others, or in any other way support conspiracy theories (and consider these principles in all other areas of our life as well that involve rational thought).

If after reading this post, your reaction is to post insults in the comment section, tell me that I am just a stooge of Big Pharma, QAnon, or whatever else, and try to promote some conspiracy that you have not read, much less been able to refute arguments against, and which fail the tests found in the verses in this post, kindly re-read the post and pay a bit more attention.

TDR

The SNOWMAN is a hater–systemically racist, sexist, fascist, and anti-LGBTQ+!!!!!!!

Happy Winter Solstice!  I wanted to point out an important point of systemic racism in this evil United States culture of racism, sexism, and xenophobia that you may have overlooked, although it is all around you, promoting microaggressions against womyn and all people of color everywhere.  After reading this article, you will have no justification for continuing use of this racist and sexist language, and you should immediately cancel anyone you know who continues to do so.  You must start going into restaurants, malls, and other random places, accosting people, and finding out if they are fascists who refuse to cancel these great evils that you are now woke to.  If they do not immediately agree with you, hit them in the face, vandalize their car, and take their wallet, as Antifa would explain is the ONLY proper response.  What do I refer to, you ask?  What could have been missed in the gazillion mandatory diversity training sessions at work, in the now ubiquitous political brainwashing everywhere?  I refer to the racist, sexist, and fascist language of the SNOWMAN.

snowman with happy children

The Snowman—

 universal symbol of patriarchy, bigotry, 

and fascist, racist, sexist hate.

Note, first of all, the sexism here—it is the snowMAN.  Snowwomen, and non-binary, LGBTQ+ snow persuns, are vastly underrepresented minorities in this cold, hard world.  You must immediately cease referring to the patriarchal term “snowman” and speak, instead of “snow persuns.”  Certainly children—excuse me, those who identify as being in the age group whose age assigned at birth is zero/newborn—should not be encouraged to build or play with snowmen.  At the very least, all snowmen should be built with a frown instead of a smile, and with frozen tears or icicles of contrition for the sexist male privilege into which they have been ushered, and a taller, stronger, happy, Biden-Harris snowwomyn should be built next to any snowman.

irish snowwoman stuffed

The snowwoman—not sexist like the snowman, but still racist and white supremacist


Note as well, that snowmen—and even snowwomyn—are overwhelmingly white.  Diversity in snowpersuns is almost entirely lacking.  White snowmen should be frozen out high-level colleges and job opportunities attractive to them, whether in refrigeration, arctic travel, or ice cream sales, until snowpersuns of color, and snowpersuns of every kind of racial, gender, and sexual minority, are overrepresented in every income bracket of our systemically racist, sexist, and fascist nation, and there are equal numbers of diverse snowpersuns found in winter in North Dakota and in summer in Arizona.

Don’t try to cover your hate with the argument that snowpersuns are white because snow is white—it’s just nature.  That’s the same type of old fascist argument people make against transgender rights when they claim there are only men and women—it’s just nature.  No, “nature” is just a social construct, just like “men,” “women,” and the color of snow.  This does not need to be proven—everyone that is woke knows it, and if you deny it you are giving in to white privilege and are just a RACIST SEXIST FASCIST.  Q. E. D.

A LGBTQ+ Non-Binary, Socialist/Communist, 

Snowbeing of Color Snowpersun—

the ONLY acceptable alternative for tolerant persuns. 

(No picture included because there aren’t any yet.)

I hope that you are now woke to the great evil of building, encouraging children to play with, or in any way supporting the racist and sexist evil of the SNOWMAN.  Dear reader, if you have every used such racist and sexist language, please send me a check of no less than $10,000 for every time you have supported patriarchy with this now cancelled term, to show that you are now fully in on diversity, inclusion and tolerance.  I will donate the appropriate portion of your guilt offering to our local Antifa chapter while keeping the rest for myself.  If you do not, I will burn your house down to show what tolerant people do to intolerant fascists like you.

stuffed snowman

So in conclusion: The snowman—cancel him! 


Mandatory Vaccination: Stop it Only One Way

 Mandatory / Compulsory Vaccination?

With COVID-19, there is a renewed call for compulsory or mandatory vaccination. Should vaccines be compelled?

I do not believe that the government should force parents to vaccinate their children against their will.  In the Bible, parental authority over children is so vast that parents could even bring rebellious children to trial and, if found guilty of consistent, persistent, and willful rebellion and wickedness, have their children executed (Deuteronomy 21:18-21; note that there is no record of parents actually following through on this with their children, as very, very few parents would want to do it, but it still shows the Biblical position on parental authority in relationship to the State). Similarly, children who cursed their parents or hit their parents would “surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:15-17) if there were multiple witnesses who were willing to testify to the fact (no Biblical indication specifies that the parents were required to testify against their children or, for that matter, that anyone at any time was compelled to testify against anyone else).

When Romans 13 outlines the role of the government, Biblically speaking, it is a “night watchman” sort of system with very limited authority.  The government is to punish evil but is not even supposed to actively do good–that is the realm of individuals and groups in society such as churches–but only to “praise” the good without financial support (Romans 13:3-4).  Biblical government is, in many ways, very libertarian on the spectrum of political ideology (learn more about the role of the government according to God’s Word here).  Therefore, based on God’s revelation, a strong support for parental authority and a strong view on a very limited role for government leads me to oppose mandatory / compulsory vaccination.  Furthermore, requiring parents who have religious objections to vaccinate is a very dangerous restriction of religious freedom.

Furthermore, in American history compulsory vaccination has led to many other restrictions on civil liberties.  A 1902 mandatory vaccination law passed in Massachusetts in response to a smallpox epidemic was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which concluded that compulsory vaccination was constitutional in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) by a 7 to 2 margin. For the benefit of the collective or group, individual liberty could be repressed.  The precedent set by this decision allowed for the promotion of eugenics; for example, in 1927 the case Buck v. Bell upheld the mandatory sterilization of a person considered “feeble-minded,” arguing that “The principle that sustains
compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian
tubes.”  The only precedent cited in case law was 
Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  The (alleged) collective good from forcibly sterilizing undesirable people overrode the individual liberty not to be–to describe it Biblically–eunuchized.  The expanded state powers that justified compulsory vaccination were used to uphold eugenic sterilization (learn more in the article here).  The power given to the State over parents that is involved in allowing compulsory vaccination also justifies the elimination of many other civil liberties.

Thus, I am against compulsory vaccination, and I believe you should be against it as well.

What is not a reason I oppose compulsory vaccination

I am against mandatory vaccination because of parental rights.  I am not against mandatory vaccination because vaccines do not work, are dangerous, or are ineffective.  Vaccines are safe, are effective, and are a great blessing to mankind in this fallen world that God has allowed scientists to discover utilizing the Biblically-based scientific method. Thanks to vaccines, diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, yellow fever, and rabies no longer kill, cripple, and cause terrible suffering to millions and millions of people.  Anti-vax propaganda simply does not reflect scientific reality in the world God has made. Common ideas, such as the lie that vaccines cause autism, was spread in order to make its author a lot of money.  If you do not vaccinate your children, you are increasing the likelihood that they will die or suffer because you believed scientifically inaccurate propaganda.  You are also not loving your neighbor as yourself, for you are increasing the likelihood that other children or adults will get sick or die.  Furthermore, you endanger the children of responsible parents who vaccinate their children, as their children, when too young to get vaccinated, may still be infected and get sick or die because you have refused to protect your own children from disease.  (Learn more about vaccine safety here.)  You may say that you don’t need to vaccinate because others do, and so there is herd immunity–but you had better keep your kids away from the airport, then, and had better not teach them to evangelize in an area that has a lot of immigrants.  You definitely would want to keep them away from the mission field.

In other words, I believe that the government should allow parents to make foolish decisions, because allowing them to make foolish decisions–like not getting vaccinated themselves or having their children vaccinated, which is very foolish–is not as bad as the consequences are of the increased governmental power involved in compulsory vaccination.  In Israel drunkenness was a sin, but it was not illegal.  Failing to help the poor was wicked, but it was not illegal.  God hated divorce, but it was legal.  Failure to love one’s neighbor as oneself was a horrible crime, but it was legal.  It should be legal for people to make all kinds of bad, foolish decisions, because increased government power is even worse than the bad, foolish decisions.

The only way to stop mandatory vaccination

While I believe that the position above is Biblically and practically correct, it is also one that is a loser politically.  If enough people believe anti-vax propaganda and stop vaccinating, it is certain that there will be more outbreaks in the United States of easily preventable diseases, and children will die for no good reason.  Enough angry parents showing pictures of happy babies and healthy children that are now dead or handicapped from diseases because of anti-vaccination lies will create an unstoppable wave of public support for mandatory vaccination.

Without mandatory vaccination, more children will get sick, suffer life-long hurt, and die.  I believe that the less-easy-to-see consequences of mandatory vaccination are worse than this awful and very visible consequence of not mandating vaccines. But is that going to win in a room full of angry parents holding pictures of their now dead children and demanding their congressman support mandatory vaccination?  Nope.  Not a chance.  Vaccines will become compulsory if enough people stop vaccinating.

So how can mandatory vaccination be stopped?  The only way to stop it is by vaccinating voluntarily.  If only a small enough percentage of the population doesn’t vaccinate, the people who are putting their children’s lives and the lives of other children at risk can fly under the radar, believe their misinformation, and not cause too much damage.  But as their number grows big enough to compromise or eliminate herd immunity, public pressure from the death, disease, and carnage caused by their irresponsible actions will lead to mandatory vaccination.

So do you want to stop mandatory vaccination?  Have your children vaccinated, encourage others to vaccinate, and fight inaccurate and unscientific anti-vaccination propaganda.

There is no other long-term way to stop mandatory vaccination.

TDR

Protests and Preaching / Prayer Unequal in California: You Can’t Go to Church, But You Can Violate the Law in Leftist Protests

 Yesterday I took the following short video in downtown San Francisco of radical leftist protesters blocking a street–it is slightly over a minute long, and can be seen on YouTube, or you can watch the embedded version below:

People illegally blocking the street for a long time in their cars is fine; there were no fines, no tickets, no penalties of any kind.  The “Poor People’s Campaign,” a radical left-wing organization whose platform “demands” crazy things like “establish[ing] 100% debt forgiveness for all borrowers earning less than $50,000; up to $50,000 of debt forgiveness for borrowers earning less than $100,000 … waiv[ing] all interest payments,” enabling illegal immigrants to “work and live without fear of arrest, deportation, or detention,” “ban[ning] the use of force” by police “against people who are unarmed,” so that if a policeman is getting punched in the face by a thug over and over again he just needs to deal with it, and if somehow the criminal is arrested, to “end cash bail” so that he can get back out again and never show up to court, and gobs of other nutty nonsense.

Were there any fines issued for blocking the street and tying up
traffic for a substantial period of time? 

No.

Were there any tickets issued? No.

Were the vehicles towed away? No.

Blocking the street to bash Mitch McConnell, to demand a
leftist and activist Supreme Court, to demand trillions of dollars in
spending, to destroy the free market, to scream leftist slogans, to
support socialism, radical Democrats, oppose Republicans, limited
government, and the U. S. Constitution, and so on, is perfectly
acceptable in the California.  Certainly if the protestors are not wearing masks or are not socially distanced it is also not a problem.

What about going to church in California? Fines–punishment–threats of
jail time–the whole force of the law bearing down on law-abiding,
peaceful Christians, who do not block streets, scream at people, cause
traffic jams, or demand the confiscation of the property of others in
the name of socialism–all they want is to be left alone to worship God
and obey the Bible. Is that acceptable in California? Nope. No way!
Just ask North Valley Baptist Church pastor Jack Trieber; Grace Community Church pastor John MacArthur; and the many other churches
suffering persecution in California.

No double standard here.  Just move on.

Oh wait–you can’t move
on–the leftist crazies are blocking the busy street in downtown, demanding
the end of the American republic.

TDR

Christians and Labor Unions: An Unequal Yoke

 or ?

Christians should not be part of labor unions.  If they are part of a union, they should resign from membership, for reasons including the following:

 

1.) The Bible teaches that employees are to submit to their employers with “fear and trembling, in singleness of [their] heart, as unto Christ; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men” (Ephesians 6:5-7).

 

It likewise teaches:


“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” (1 Timothy 6:1)

 

“Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again.” (Titus 2:9)

 

“Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (1 Peter 2:18)

 

Since believers are commanded to submit to their employers as to Jesus Christ, to strike, walk out on, speak evil of, disobey, undermine, or provoke discontent against their employers is to rebel against Jesus Christ.  These commands apply not just to godly employers but to evil ones as well (1 Peter 2:18).  You do not bargain with Jesus Christ.  You submit to Jesus Christ.  The Bible requires a similar sort of obedience to your employer. Employees who are treated poorly are to cry to God (James 5:4), who will give wicked employers eternal punishment (James 5) as well as being able to apply righteous punishments even in this life, but as an individual employee the command is:  “He [the employee] doth not resist you [the employer]” (James 5:6).  This command to cry to God and show sacrificial love and non-resistance to employers, even wicked ones, is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of labor unions.

 

2.) Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) that love to all should be the basis for the Christian’s actions, rejecting the union idea of the class-struggle; Christ likewise rejected the materialism that is involved in union membership, instead teaching that the saints must seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness first; and Christ rejected the principle of force and coercion that is too often involved in union membership.

 

3.) Christ also specifically taught individual bargaining rather than collective bargaining for laborers (Matthew 20:2, 15).

 

4.) The Bible teaches that those who are part of the kingdom of God and those who are part of the kingdom of this age (cf. John 1:12; 8:44; Ephesians 2:1-10) are radically different. When the Christian recognized his status as a hell-worthy sinner, repented of his sin and any confidence in religious rituals or good deeds, and trusted in the saving work of Christ on the cross alone, he was born again (John 3:3).  Those who have experienced this miraculous change have different aspirations, ways of thinking, paths in this life, and eternal destinies from those who have not, and Scripture forbids the born again from assuming an unequal yoke with those who are not in the path of God’s kingdom (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1).  These facts require Christians to refrain from joining or financially supporting labor unions.

 

5.) Finally, Christians must not be part of an organization that supports, lobbies for, donates to, or promotes causes that the Bible condemns.  Unions spend millions and millions of dollars advocating for the legal murder of preborn children. When you give money to the union, you are supporting ripping helpless infants limb from limb while they face excruciating pain without the pain killers given to dogs and cats. You are supporting sodomy, although God says it is an abomination and He rained fire and brimstone on those practicing it (Genesis 19). You are supporting the persecution of Christian and other religious business owners and attempting to force them to violate their consciences and their duties to God. You are contributing to them having to choose to bow to the rainbow Mafia or to lose their businesses (Matthew 25:40, 45). You are violating huge numbers of Biblical principles about civil government.


Even secular people in the United States, whether in right-to-work states or states that limit one’s freedom to work, cannot be forced to join unions to keep their jobs, nor can they be forced to pay full union dues. In non-right-to-work states, those with religious objections to union membership can opt out of the union and not pay the union a single penny, based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and principles affirmed in the First Amendment and reaffirmed in Janus v. AFSCME. (Please note that I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice.)


If Jesus Christ is your Lord, then you must not bow the knee to a labor union. Do not join one, and if you are part of one, get out. If you need help in leaving, contact the National Right to Work Foundation.

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives