Is Telling the Truth Newsworthy?

Jesus warned:

“For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light” (Luke 8:17 NASB).

If only CNN had listened! Project Veritas recently released a series of secret recordings revealing the private agenda CNN was pursuing while simultaneously claiming to be “the most trusted name in news.” CNN has rejected the traditional media objective of presenting truthful news and has adopted the role of a political change-agent, spinning, twisting, and making up “new stories” to achieve a specific outcome—in this case, the removal of the elected president of the United States.
The new undercover video reveals previously hidden conversations between CNN employees:
“Another staffer identified on the recordings as field production supervisor Gerald Sisnette said CNN won’t change until Trump ‘dies,’ adding ‘hopefully soon.’ Alleged staffers are also heard saying on the secret recording that CNN manufactures drama to increase revenue.”

Whenever propaganda parades as journalism, the people suffer; but its harmful effects are not limited just to people in the United States, for CNN has an additional 384 million international households who believe they are watching American news and not political talking points.

But CNN is not alone in deceiving the public with its personal vendetta against the President.

When President Trump was speaking on Turkey and Syria, saying, “They have a problem at a border — it’s not our border,” NBC changed his phrase “it’s not our border” to “it’s not our problem,” thus making him say something he definitely did not. And ABC deliberately broadcast footage from a gun range in Kentucky while portraying it as Turkish bombings in Syria.

While some stories are corrected when exposed, how much damage is done to our country through the intentional dissemination of false information simply to further politically-charged narratives? If self-proclaimed journalists insist on professing personal political opinions under the guise of reporting news stories, they should openly announce themselves as political commentators, or go to work for political campaigns or PACs. (But maybe that’s what they are doing by working for today’s so-called “news media.”)

Claiming to tell the truth and actually telling the truth can be polar opposites. But as George Washington affirmed, genuine truth will eventually win out: “Truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light.”

The Bible warns strongly against those who speak lies disguised as truth (1 Timothy 4:2). Hypocrisy of any kind is to be abhorred, and Jesus called out the Pharisees (or was it today’s news media?) for such deception:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:27-28 NASB).

As people of faith, we need to be “shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16), wary of “the father of lies” (John 8:44), who deploys wolves “in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15). But at the same time, we should also ask ourselves, “What would the world find out about me if every conversation of mine was secretly taped and later exposed?”

“He who walks in integrity walks securely, But he who perverts his ways will be found out” (Proverbs 10:9 NASB).



Flood, B. & Givas, N. (2019, October 17). CNN staffers bash network’s liberal bias, Jeff Zucker goes after Trump in new, secret recordings. Retrieved from

CNN worldwide fact sheet. Retrieved from

PART 1: CNN insider blows whistle on network president Jeff Zucker’s personal vendetta against POTUS. (2019, October 14). Retrieved from

NBC news on Twitter. (2019, October 16). Retrieved from

Givas, N. (2019, October 14). ABC apologizes for mistaking Kentucky gun range video for Turkish bombing of Syria. Retrieved from

Washington, G. (1794, August 10). Letter to Charles M. Thruston. Retrieved from


Lawmaking Lawlessness

Passing burdensome legislation is one of the many things that is not “new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Even in Biblical times, this was a common practice for policy-makers:

“The scribes and the Pharisees…tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men…” (Matthew 23:2, 4 NASB).

Although Congress remains “deadlocked” and not much is moving forward right now at the Federal level, local governments on the other hand are very busy passing legislation that, quite frankly, continue to move the needle forward that infringe on our everyday lives. The NYC Commission on Human Rights published new guidelines on how to refer to undocumented immigrants, announcing “The use of the term ‘illegal alien’… is illegal under the law,” with fines of up to $250,000 if violated.

NYC employers and landlords can also be fined up to $250,000 for “using gender pronouns other than those preferred by employees and tenants.” But even this ridiculous policy is not as onerous as the one in California that imposes up to one year imprisonment for “California health care workers who ‘willfully and repeatedly’ decline to use a senior transgender patient’s ‘preferred name or pronouns.’”

Meanwhile, traditional laws for the protection of all citizens are being set aside. California Governor Gavin Newsom recently reversed a law requiring citizens to assist local law enforcement. And on the other coast: “A Virginia police officer was suspended after allegedly turning over a suspected undocumented immigrant to federal authorities following a traffic accident last month.”

When policy-makers encourages lawlessness, law and order becomes null and void.

James Madison warned of such trigger-happy legislation, writing: “The internal effects of a mutable [ever-changing] policy are…calamitous [disastrous]. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous [numerous] that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood—if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated [passed], or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.”

The Chief Lawmaker of the universe gave Ten Commandments for humanity to follow, so why do fallible lawmakers believe it necessary to impose hundreds of thousands of regulations on local constituents? In the words of Jesus:

“Woe to you…[You] have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:23-24 NASB).

And woe to those policy-makers who make government a personal weapon to micro-regulate behavior according to the ever-changing winds of political correctness while ignoring the true purpose of law and government.




NYC commission on human rights announces new legal enforcement guidance and actions against discrimination based on immigration status and national origin. Retrieved from

Gallagher, T. (2019, October 1). Retrieved from

Singman, B. (2017, October 9). New California law allows jail time for using wrong gender pronoun, sponsor denies that would happen. Retrieved from

DeMarche, E. (2019, September 4). California’s Newsom signs bill allowing citizens to refuse to help a police officer. Retrieved from

Casiano, L. (2019, October 1). Virginia police officer suspended after turning in suspected undocumented immigrant over to ICE. Retrieved from

Madison, J. (1788, February 27). The Federalist No. 62. Retrieved from


The US Constitution and Foreign Policy

Just in case you are averting your ears and eyes to the impeachment inquiry against President Trump, there was a lot to be said about the testimony of LTC Alexander Vindman. LTC Vindman was one of the people that was listening to the call that Trump made to the Ukrainian President on 25 July.  According to the Washington Post, a paper that does not support President Trump:
“[Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen.”
The suggestion being made is that the President was subverting US foreign policy. What foreign policy was he exactly subverting? Can the President subvert foreign policy if he has authority over foreign policy? Can the President ask a foreign leader to help in the investigation of a US Citizen? If he doesn’t, then who does have the authority to discuss this with another foreign leader? Congress? If a President subverts foreign policy, can he subvert him or herself? What does the US Constitution have to say about Presidential powers for foreign policy?  Unfortunately, the answer is not that cut and dry.
  1. Article 2 of the US Constitution gives certain authority to the President.
  2. Article 1 of the US Constitution gives certain authority to Congress
  3. There is no authority granted to the Judicial Branch over foreign policy; however, the Judicial Branch does have authority to submit and provide legal decisions regarding how the executive and legislative branches conduct themselves regarding constitutional law – this includes foreign policy. Supreme Court decisions in this area were very limited for the first 200 years of this nation, but, have grown significantly over the last two decades or so.
  4. And then, there are some powers that are divided equally amongst both branches.


The political branches often cross swords over foreign policy, particularly when the president is of a different party than the leadership of at least one chamber of Congress.  Foreign affairs include activities such as military operations, trade and commerce, immigration, intelligence operations, foreign aid, and international agreements (i.e., treaty’s) Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your perspective, the Constitution is not very specific in some of these areas, but it can be argued that the division if powers over foreign affairs is implied in almost all areas. For example: if Congress is not happy about a military action ordered by the President, Congress does control the money – they can hold off funding. A second example is the appointment of ambassadors, Congress can deny approval of an ambassador by vote. 

Nonetheless, history has shown that the party in power will use the vagueness of Foreign Powers in the Constitution to their advantage; this goes for both Republican and Democrat. Presidents have accumulated foreign policy powers at the expense of Congress in recent years, particularly since the 9/11 attacks – perhaps this is why we have experienced a dramatic increase in these types of issues going to the US Supreme Couty. The trend conforms to a historical pattern in which, during times of war or national emergency, the White House has tended to overshadow Capitol Hill. Is Russian collusion into our election considered a national emergency? I think so and, unfortunately, I have zero confidence in Congress to investigate this. 

Secondarily, we regularly hear about the President “obstructing justice”. In truth, the President has told certain high level officials that they will not testify in front of Congress and they have also stated their refusal to turn over some of the documents that Congress has requested. One may argue that the President is correct, there is such a thing as executive privilege, but, I believe that the most obvious case is that Congress is NOT following precedent in this impeachment inquiry. Yes, portions of previous impeachment inquiries into Clinton and Nixon were held in secret, but, and this is a large but, these inquiries were led by an independent council and NOT by a member of the Intelligence Committee of Congress who has an extremely obvious case of political bias. If I were Trump, I would hold as much back as possible and only release the materials once I have an opportunity to participate in the legal process.

 Back to the argument about foreign policy powers, “The Constitution, considered only for its affirmative grants of power capable of affecting the issue, is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy,” wrote constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin in 1958. Some legal and constitutional scholars have noted that presidents have many natural advantages over lawmakers with regard to leading on foreign policy. These include the unity of office, capacity for secrecy and speed, and superior information. “The verdict of history, in short, is that the substantive content of American foreign policy is a divided power, with the lion’s share falling usually, though by no means always, to the president,” wrote Corwin.

President Trump’s foreign policy proposals may spur Congress into taking a more active role than it has in recent years, writes political science professor Stephen R. Weissman in Foreign Affairs. But, as the precedent has already been set in reference to the President and his power over foreign policy, can Congress find the President in violation of law regarding his actions?  Perhaps, at best, they can make new laws limiting the Presidents power moving forward.

For example: what law did the President break when it is said that he subverted foreign policy?  Adam Schiff, for his part, is arguing that the President abused his power in a quid pro quo by asking a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent that, some say, Trump can use in the upcoming President election.  However, as Republicans and others are arguing, the transcript provided does not show this, so again, what law did Trump break?  

The sad news for Americans is that, unless this transcript is shown to have been manipulated (which some are now saying), then the country will always remain divided over this question.  I am one that does not believe this impeachment is about preserving the argument that “nobody is above the law”, else, I believe that we would have seen many more prominent and politically elite, in prison or fined significant amounts of dollars at the least. No my brothers and sisters, all impeachment hearings are political, including the ones that came against Clinton and Nixon. 

Regardless of the outcome, whether Trump is vindicated or whether he is found guilty, this impeachment is not healthy for our country and will divide us further. If you don’t want Trump as your President, then vote him out in 2020. If you do, then vote him in. Let America speak and stop the political pandering.  Our elected officials are acting like children – all of them. One trying to outdo the other, all of them are trying to sell us on why they “are great Americans” and are about doing America’s business in the name of justice. 

Did the President break the law by subverting foreign policy? Give the American people ALL of the information and let the American people decide, because our elected representatives are failing.


References:, accessed 4 Nov 2019, accessed 4 Nov 2019, accessed 4 Nov 2019, accessed 4 Nov 2019, accessed 4 Nov 2019


Joe Biden Denied Communion

A bishop in South Carolina refused to allow communion for Joe Biden due to the VP’s stance on abortion. A few days later, a bishop in New York also stated that he would not allow communion for Joe Biden for the same reason. In his defense, Joe Biden did not speak out negatively of the bishops; however, he did state that while he is a faithful Catholic, it was not his job to “push” his faith on others. His assertion is that while he may personally dislike the idea of abortion, it was not his responsibility to support a policy that would prohibit those that want an abortion from having one. 

A few observations about Biden’s position, in which he is far from alone:

  1. Biden’s position on abortion has changed over the last 40 years in a way that mimic’s what culture is telling him. When abortions were not viewed favorably, he spoke out against it. Now that culture celebrates abortion, he supports it.
  1. Biden’s fear of man (i.e., likability and electability) is significantly stronger than his fear of God.
  1. Did He pray about, or ask God, what position to take in reference to abortion?
  1. It is not for me to question or judge his faith; however, if he truly believes that he will be standing before God upon his death, then he also believes that God will support his decision to support abortion and the killing of babies. I do wonder what he believes the Lord will say to him about this topic? I truly wonder what his heart is telling him.
  1. When he states “push” in reference to placing his faith on others, this language is very strong and I question his word choice and his view of what it means to truly believe and practice a Christian faith. Would it be wrong for him to state that his “faith is the foundation of my values and I value all life. While I am obligated to support abortion because that is the current law of the land, I cannot in good “faith” be in support of the procedure itself as this would conflict with my faith and my values.”?

In fact, I have to wonder what all professed Christians, that support abortion, truly believe they will hear when they are standing before our Father. Do they truly believe that He will be ok with it?

Some believers may believe that they can compromise their faith in favor of the right to “reproductive health care”, but I am one that does not believe they can support this in Scripture. My heart breaks not only for the children that are murdered in the name of health care, but my heart also breaks for believers that think abortion is ok. 

Just a thought.

God bless.


The Box of Self-Betrayal

1 Timothy 3:2. An overseer [leader] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not an excessive drinker, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy.

    May the Lord bless you today and tomorrow. On occasion, I spend time on reflection, reflecting on where I have been, who I have spent time with, how I got here, and, more importantly, what does the Lord have in store for me moving forward. I am not sure about you, but I tend to get a Word by reading a book, reading a verse or two that are illumined on my heart, or even watching something on TV. The cool thing is that I never know where the word will come from, it tends to just happen. Last year, the Lord enlightened me to some financial and investment decisions but earlier this year, He served as my comforter by bringing to the front of my heart my own acts of self-betrayal.  This word came from a random book that I picked up late in 2018 titled “Leadership and Self-Deception”.  As I am always one to use myself as an example, I will once again place myself “out there”. I know that I am not the only one that has experienced this, or, perhaps you know someone like this.

Matthew 7:5 (NASB) You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    When I joined the military over 30 years ago, I did not know that I would serve 20 years. When I retired in 2007, I had not realized how my life had fully acclimated to change. I had become acclimated to frequent changes in my life that included such things as job changes, leadership changes, military change of stations, deployments, training, and several promotions. This lifestyle of change had so percolated my life, that I failed to realize until now, how this had impacted my post military career – and not necessarily in a good way.  The primary symptom that this manifested in me was boredom, which I recognized (I would even joke about it), but what I failed to observe is the condition this had placed on my soul and how I allowed this so-called “boredom” to impact me in other ways.

    Since my military retirement, I was honored to serve in “a few jobs”. By November of 2018, I started job number eight.  Yep, eight jobs in 10 years. There are a lot of reasons for this, boredom for all sense and purposes was just an excuse I had created in my own mind. On New Years Eve (2018/2019), the Lord brought the full truth down to me in his comforting, revealing, and funny way. Bottom line is that I had accustomed myself into a learned behavior where I was betraying myself. I had convinced myself that it was inevitable that I would eventually get bored at a job and, knowing that it was coming, I would start coming up with – and even creating – excuses to rationalize my eventual departure from “the job”. Once the excuses start to flow, I would start to get uncomfortable and create more excuses to explain away my discomfort.  I had placed myself in a vicious circle and as a result, I would betray my own happiness and job satisfaction. After all, I was going to leave the job anyway, why get comfortable or be happy about it?  For those that I hurt, or otherwise betrayed as a result, I can only apologize.

    Via this regular ‘modus operandi’, I placed myself in a constant “Box of Self-Betrayal”. Once in this box, I would become deeply insecure and hurt other people around me with the end result, causing them to place themselves in a box of their own. I would continue to come up with excuses to justify my own issues with happiness and job satisfaction. I needed this justification and I needed other people to also be “in a box”. And oh God no, it was never my fault – nope!! It was always someone else’s fault that I was not happy or satisfied. While in the box, I am actively resisting what God is asking me to do with, and for, others. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Lord promises to give us a new heart and He will remove the hearts of stone.


    When in the box: I see myself as the victim, I am hardworking, I am important, I am fair, I am sensitive, I am good at what I do, I am a good leader and follower. When in the box, here is how I see others: lazy, incompetent, unappreciative, lousy, insensitive and/or inconsiderate.

    Here is what I have learned by being “in the box”. 1) It does not work when you try to change others, 2) it does not help when I do my best to simply cope with others, 3) leaving the job does not help (oof!, that one hurt), 4) just communicating my feelings with others does not help, 5) learning and implementing new skills does not help, and 6) even changing my own behavior does not help.  None of these work because in each one of these areas, I am still focused on myself.  But wait, there’s more!! And it gets worse!!  What do you think this mode of thinking does to ones character?  Shall I share?  OK.  Depending on the job, one or more of the following have been a problem for me: 1) lack of commitment, 2) lack of engagement, 3) troublemaking, 4) conflict, 5) lack of motivation, 6) stress, 7) poor teamwork, 8) backbiting and bad attitude, 9) misalignment, 10) lack of trust, 11) accountability issues, and 12) communication issues. I wonder how many of my ex-coworkers would agree to these?

    Now, to be clear, there were plenty of occasions when I was not in the box and I was always on a mission to see the organizations I worked for succeed. Even more so, I wanted my direct reports to succeed – this is where my primary motivation was generally derived from.  I have known for a few years that there was something going on inside of me, I could just not explain it. I knew that I had some old programming in my mind, and in my heart, that I needed to clear up, but nothing was working. I had prayed about this for years and I cannot recall, at any time, a good answer that I could use to rectify my destructive pattern. Until now. The answer had been right in front me the entire time. Praise God!!  There are people that have been in and out of my life, in which I was never in a box around them. What made them different than others? And then, there are some people in which I move in and out of the box like some kind of jack in the box.  On a deep level, this is when my personal values are in conflict; primarily values of honor, integrity and loyalty.

Person B


    When I was operating outside of the box, these are the occasions where I would question my own virtue and my personal values were in full force. These are the occasions where I would question my own hypocrisy, and I would even dare say, that the Lord had been trying to talk to me the entire time. My heart had been focused correctly, but my rational and logical mind would take over.

    Here is the bottom line of my discussion with the Lord on this topic. I have been a real jack ass, and everyone knew it but me.  I now know what it is that has been placing me “In the Box” and the Lord and I are working on a system to keep me out of the box – a way of thinking, a way of measuring, a way of reporting, and a way of working.  An accountability system that will minimize my self-betrayal. Once outside of the box, it is much easier to move forward. The Lord is offering me up another chance and I believe that He has an awesome plan for my wife and I in 2019 and beyond. A breakthrough. The result is a system of achieving positive results that require thinking of others first. This is true servant leadership. This is what it looks like outside of the box.


    Here is what I know now:1) self betrayal leads to self-deception which leads to “the box”, 2) when in the box, you are not focused on results, 3) success and influence depends on being outside of the box, 4) we get out of the box when we stop resisting other people.   When we honor ourselves and others we are: committed, engaged, reputable, positive, sensible and self controlled, and hospitable.

Do my best to help people achieve results Choice Committed Engaged Problem Solver Happy and joyful Motivated Fun and jovial Team oriented How I start to see myself Victor Inner Peace Gentle Hospitable Honor It How I see coworkers Brothers/Sisters in Christ Considerate Important Betray It "Self-Betrayal" How I start to see myself Victim Hardworking Important Fair How I se coworker Lazy Inconsidera Unapprecia Insensitive


Our Flags Waving, Never Forget

The Bible repeatedly commands us to remember the past:

“Remember the days of old; consider the years long past.” (Deuteronomy 32:7)

“Remember the former things of old.” (Isaiah 46:9)

“But call to remembrance the former days.” (Hebrews 10:32)

Oftentimes, holidays exist to be times of remembrance—days such as Christmas, Easter, and the Fourth of July. Yet somehow in today’s heated political environment, it seems that the primary remembering being done (or at least the primary remembering that is capturing the national spotlight) is that of remembering past sins rather than our triumph over them.

Ex-NFL player Colin Kaepernick made headlines…“by telling Nike to pull its Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July sneakers. Nike said [Kapernick] told the company he believes the colonial flag used on the shoes is offensive, because it was flown when slavery was legal.”

If Kaepernick’s measurement of historical expungement is to be the new standard, then anything used before the Civil War must be excluded, because it was used when “slavery was legal.” This would mean that the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Seneca Falls Woman’s Rights Convention, and the Emancipation Proclamation must be excluded because they were used when “slavery was legal.”

Imagine what would occur if we applied a similar standard in other areas. For example, what if we cut from the Bible the story of everyone who sinned? We would have no examples of redemption. The only Biblical account remaining would be that of Jesus’ life (minus the content of bickering disciples, plotting Pharisees, violent Romans, and betraying Judases). What is the meaning of the Cross without the understanding of our sins for which the Savior died?

Behind every truly great story or inspirational person is a background of conflict or suffering—which makes the story of the overcoming that much more worth the telling. We have to remember enough of the evil to appreciate the good.

The Home Page of our website is dominated by a waving flag. We believe in what the flag stands for – our nation and the people in it. Many seem to forget that the American flag was not the flag of slavery; it was the flag of the Union that abolished slavery. Regardless of the era in which it was flown, our flag has always represented the spirit of liberty and freedom. As acknowledged in the National Anthem:

“Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto, “In God is our trust.”

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!”

Human civilization will continue to progress (or regress) depending on our attitude to history. If we ignore the past, then centuries from now even our presence today will be obliterated from the public record. After all, there are more than 40 million in slavery right now (far more than at anytime in world history). Since this is the most slavery-ridden time in world history, what if future generations use today’s standard refuse to mention anything from our generation?

As God’s children living in this country, we may look with pride on our flag, which has flown over battlefields at home and abroad as brave men and women for centuries believed our own inalienable rights, and those of others (including black Americans in slavery, for whom hundreds of thousands gave their lives) were worth dying for.

In the words of colonial flag-maker Betsy Ross,

“Our hearts aching, our prayers praying, our flags waving, never forget.”



Gage, J. (2019, July 4). Colin Kaepernick breaks silence after igniting controversy over Nike’s Betsy Ross flag shoes. Retrieved from

The star-spangled banner. (2015). Retrieved from

The Editors of Peter Pauper Press. (2018). Revolutionary women: From colonists to suffragists. Retrieved from,+our+prayers+praying,+our+flags+waving,+never+forget.”&source=bl&ots=EciDJiZR7v&sig=ACfU3U3exsv4lq-fxsPdOS-dG2N87ckAxQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH-oybj6HjAhWYGs0KHVCTD-Y4ChDoATAAegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=Our%20hearts%20aching%2C%20our%20prayers%20praying%2C%20our%20flags%20waving%2C%20never%20forget.”&f=false


The Electoral College

The Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution, constituted every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, and an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes is required to win election. Pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, each state legislature determines the manner by which its state’s electors are chosen. Each state’s number of electors is equal to the combined total of the state’s membership in the Senate and House of Representatives; currently there are 100 senators and 435 representatives. Additionally, the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, provides that the District of Columbia (D.C.) is entitled to the number of electors it would have if it were a state, but no more than the least populated state (presently 3).U.S. territories are not entitled to any electors as they are not states.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg stated that if he was elected as president of the United States, he would try to heal the divide in the country and reassure Americans about the voting process in part by abolishing the Electoral College. All of the Democratic Candidates agree.

Every presidential election, candidates campaign in a state-by-state race, not only to win the most votes, but also to win their respective electoral votes. The number of electors varies by state: Alabama, for example, has nine; Florida has 29; Massachusetts has 11; Vermont has three. The power to determine the president of the United States is ultimately reserved for the 538 electors, as candidates race to win at least 270 electoral votes in the general election. The Electoral College motivates candidates to visit and campaign in most states across the country – it is believed that this would change if the college were done away with.

Most states award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis, meaning that the candidate to win the most votes in a given state will take all of that state’s electoral votes, as well. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. Electoral votes are instead allocated proportionally.

While Democrats are the most vocal about abolishing the electoral college, some Republicans have also suggested it albeit less vocally and less frequently. President Trump even called for its abolishment in 2012, but changed his mind after winning the election in 2016 (irony?).

In 2020, there could be even fewer battleground states, according to the National Popular Vote. This could pose a problem moving forward as just five or six battleground states hold more power in determining where 2020 campaign efforts are focused.

The truth is that if the Electoral College were done away with, smaller states and more rural states will have less influence in elections that rely only on the popular vote. But these states already have little power under the current system, which relies heavily on winning over a small number of deciding states.

Big states like California, Florida, New York, and Texas would have more power in deciding the president. Basically, the President would be elected by the large cities such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Atlanta (for example). Because they are politicians first, you would very likely never see the President – ever. Why should he/she? 50% of the country (land, not people) would no longer matter.

However, abolishing the college would require a Constitutional Amendment and this is not likely to happen as 2/3rds of the states would need to ratify it. Therefore, it is not likely to happen. Nonetheless, this is the direction that the Democratic Party is going to continue to push this. At least, until the lose the popular vote.


Faith, Love, and Culture Part 2

Jude 1:20-21. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. 

   My wife and I recently had a discussion with a woman who was very interested in how we integrate “American politics” into our ministry. She had mentioned that she and her husband would watch events happen around them, or on the news, and they would get angry about it. They felt helpless at what they could do to participate in the discussion and had doubts about how they, being one “small” couple, could do anything to make an impact.  Julee and I could absolutely relate to how she was feeling – we still can.  The couple in question have been involved in leading ministry efforts for many years; whereas Julee and I just started our ministry a few months ago. Some may ask that if they, as experienced ministers, don’t know what to do, then who are Julee and I to do anything? In regards to her question about how we do this, we offered the following:

  1. Our preference, and our mission, is to have discussions around “culture” versus politics. While politics is a part of culture, it is culture that influences politics. There are efforts to politicize culture movements (which we discuss as the Lord leads us), but forced culture reform leads to a reduction in personal liberty, which then leads to tyranny. This is why we decided to start sharing the truth as we believe it to be (and as we are guided by the Holy Spirit). Our articles always follow the pleadings of the Holy Ghost and will not always follow the current news cycle.
  2. As ambassadors of Christ, we must learn to manage our anger when it comes to cultural debate. Paul reminds us about our sinful nature in Romans 7. When we get angry, this is our sinful nature working to come to the surface. Thankfully, as Paul further reminds us in Romans 8, we have been redeemed by Jesus Christ who strengthens us, allowing us to be overcomers.  As ambassadors, we should endeavor to approach things in a way that honors Christ – this can be difficult when our flesh wants to act out in culture.
  3. We endeavor to write about, and discuss American cultural issues, from the perspective of Kingdom Principles.  Some people refer to biblical principles but as scripture can be used to support any argument, we don’t feel that biblical principals seamlessly apply. Kingdom Principles are items that we glean from prayerfully reading through the scripture, followed by revelation knowledge from the Father. He never lets us down.
  4. A tad more than 50% of the time, we are not knowledgeable on certain cultural topics, so we read up on them, study them, and meditate on them. While we do get tidbits of knowledge from specific articles, we always follow the thread of resources as annotated in the articles we read. When reading up on pieces of legislation, we always go straight to the actual legislation, or bill, itself to develop our own interpretation.
  5. When quoting something that someone said, we always go to a video source to hear it for ourselves. We also listen to the entirety of the video to ensure context.  If video is not available, then we go to the material that the person wrote themselves. Again, we read the entirety of the writing to ensure proper context. We never rely on headlines, memes, or one liners – though these may lead us to something more tangible.
  6. We always tend to leave our secular, commentary, and other source materials in a REFERENCE section at the bottom of our articles so that our readers can judge for themselves.
  7. We have a few mentors in American and Christian culture that we rely on and follow for teachings and guidance. Our primary sources of kingdom principles and Godly mentorship include:
    1. Truth and Liberty (affiliated with Andrew Womack)
    2. Jim Dennison
    3. Lance Wallnau
    4. Wallbuilders (Dave Barton)
    5. Patriot Academy (Rick Green).
    6. American Heritage Foundation
    7. Family Policy Alliance
  8. Last, but most importantly, we remain consistent in a solid foundation of both prayer and scripture time.


   In early October, we wrote an article on Faith, Love, and Culture.  This article touches on how we must maintain our faith and love in our fellow man as we journey along this path of life on earth together. However, this week, the Lord brought me to Jude 1:20-21 and it resonated on my heart as an expansion, or addendum, to the article previously written. We can remain at peace with the world around us as long as we remain firm on our foundations. When our politicians behave radically, rudely, or out of the character you expect, a solid foundation in His Word and in prayer will keep you walking forward with your head held high.

   Over the last 12 months or so, I have found that anger towards others with whom I have disagreement with in regards to American Culture has decreased tremendously. This does not mean that I do not get frustrated, nor does it mean that my heart rate does not increase for a few minutes when I see or read a view that opposes my own. But I find that tolerance is much easier, sympathy comes faster, and mercy comes “eventually”.  I do have my buttons and short strings, but this is a far cry from the person I was just a few short years ago, but this is due largely in part to the calling the Lord has placed on our hearts.

   True believers have a sure foundation (see 1 Cor 3:11) and cornerstone (see Eph 2:20) in Jesus Christ. The truths of the Christian faith (v. 3) have been provided in the teaching of the apostles and prophets, so that Christians can build themselves up by the Word of God (see Acts 20:32).  Praying in the Holy Spirit is not a call to some ecstatic form of prayer, but simply a call to pray consistently in the will and power of the Spirit, as one would pray in the name of Jesus.

   We do not have the qualities or the experiences of Jim Dennison or Andrew Womack, but the Lord does not want that from us. Inspirational talks may stir us up; impassioned speeches may really get our blood flowing – but without a faith informed by the Scriptures, it’s all just a lot of hype! We are our own (unique) in the image of God, we have our own experiences and we are not designed or intended to be parrots of our favorite pastors or ministers. But, what the Lord does want from ALL of us is a solid grounding in scripture and a full life in prayer.  These two things, scripture and prayer, are the foundations that will lead us to being comforted in this journey we call life, no matter what you read in the news, personalities you listen to, or activities you personally witness around you.

   Julee and I have wonderful “personal” prayer times and we both love spending personal time in our bibles (I have three on my desk at any given time). We have recently made a decision to come together in prayer – together and daily. We have done this off and on over the last few years but praying together has not been a regular activity in our lives and we have been missing out. However, no matter how we feel or what we are doing, we (mostly she) presses forward to ensure that she and I spend time, every day, praying together. The love of a husband and wife can only be fully realized when they’re open with each other and sharing their lives – including a life together in prayer.

   To pray in the Holy Spirit means to approach God in and by the Spirit as opposed to the flesh. Coming with an attitude of surrender – Rather than being full of self. The Apostle Paul said that he both prayed with understanding and in the Spirit, meaning in the tongue the Spirit gave him that bypassed his understanding.

   Keeping yourselves in the love of God is an imperative that establishes the believers responsibility to be obedient and faithful by living out our salvation while God works out His will (see Php 2:13). It means that we must remain in the place of obedience where God has poured His love out on His children, as opposed to being disobedient and then incurring His chastening. This is accomplished by: 1) building ones self up in the Word of God (Jude 1:20), 2) praying in the Holy Spirit, and 3) looking for the finalization of eternal life.

   We wait in eager anticipation of Christ’s second coming to provide eternal life in its ultimate, resurrection form, which is the supreme expression of Gods mercy on one whom Christ’s righteousness has undeservedly been imputed. Paul called this “loved His appearing” (see 2 Tim 4:8) and John wrote that such a steady anticipation was purifying (see 1 Jn 3:3).

   Therefore, brothers and sisters, keep at the forefront of your hears and your minds that “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Regular, consistent Bible reading and study is crucial if we’re going to grow spiritually. There’s no substitute for the Word of God.

Added Scriptural References:

1 Jude 3:3 ……contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

1 Cor 3:11. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:20. having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,

Acts 20:32. And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Phil 2:13. for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

2 Tim 4:8. in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

1 John 3:3 And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.


Free Stuff or Freedom?

On March 11, 2019, President Donald Trump released his budget request for fiscal year 2020. Under his proposal, the federal budget would be a record $4.746 trillion. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.645 trillion in revenue. That creates a $1.101 trillion deficit for October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020.

These data points are not intended to be critical of the proposed budget for 2020, the data points are provided to share what the current budget looks like for the US Government, as well as the expected revenue the US Government plans to take in.  As you see, the current US Budget is approximately $4 trillion while current revenue is approximately $3.7 trillion.

Using the current US Budget estimates, we can use these numbers as we consider the planned policies and intent of the current democratic presidential candidates.  They are ALL promising a lot of free stuff for people, including those that do not pay any taxes in the United States, current and future.  Another example is the proposed Green New Deal, which is expected to cost in excess of $32 trillion over ten years, that amounts to $3.2 trillion per year, on top of the already existing budget requirement of approximately $4 trillion. If you think a $1.1 trillion deficit is tough to swallow, consider the potential budget problem if one of the potential democrats takes office.

Throughout history, civilizations have fallen for the alluring promise of free stuff—even when it comes at the cost of their freedom.

Recall the words of many Israelites who had just been delivered from four-hundred years of slavery in Egypt?

“The sons of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the Lord’s hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Exodus 16:3 NASB).

They valued the free stuff in Egypt above the freedom God had miraculously given them. As America prepares for another political campaign season, voters are being courted with the alluring promises of free perks: “…a set of guaranteed payments of $1,000 per month, or $12,000 per year, to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18. Yes, that means you and everyone you know would get $1,000/month every month from the U.S. government, no questions asked.”

“…we will organize the American people around the concept that all people in this country have the right to health care…when I talk about health care being a human right, last time I heard that undocumented people are human beings as well.”

“All federal student loan borrowers would qualify for loan forgiveness.” But is a universal basic income really free? Definitely not.

“Doling out a Universal Basic Income of $12,000 a year to every American citizen would cost taxpayers $3.8 trillion…That’s roughly one-fifth of the nation’s entire annual economic production.”

For every American to get a “free” $12,000 per year from the government, every American would have to pay an additional $12,000 per year in taxes.

How about universal healthcare?

“‘Medicare for All’ is estimated to cost tens of trillions of dollars over a decade.” Americans would have to pay even higher taxes for “free” healthcare than they would for a “free” guaranteed income.  Senator Elizabeth Warren refuses to say how she will pay for this, refusing to state that she will raise income taxes. Bernie Sanders has been very transparent, on the other hand, stating that he intends to place a very dramatic tax against the wealthy.

And what’s the cost of forgiving student debt?

“Eliminating all student loan debt would cost somewhere around $1.6 trillion, though the exact cost is anyone’s guess. Sanders says that his plan, which includes making all public colleges in the U.S. free, would cost $2.2 trillion.”

And these figures do not include the Green New Deal’s estimated cost between $32 and $93 trillion (yep, TRILLION). How can Americans afford this free economic stuff? They can’t. They would have to say goodbye to their individual economic freedom and become slaves of the state—Biblically speaking, they would have to leave the freedom of the Promised Land to return to slavery in Egypt.

No matter what aspiring political leaders may promise, free benefits always come with strings (and more often chains) attached. Thomas Jefferson wisely warned: “If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”



Yang, A. (2019). What is universal basic income? Retrieved from

Rutz, D. (2019, June 21). Sanders: Medicare for All plan would ‘absolutely’ cover illegal immigrants. Retrived from

Stratford, M. (2019, July 24). How Elizabeth Warren would cancel student loan debt. Retrieved from

Jaeger, M. (2018, July 12). Universal Basic Income would cost taxpayers $3.8T per year: study. Retrieved from

Earl, J. (2019, January 28). How much would ‘Medicare for All’ cost? Democrats’ health care plan explained. Retrieved from

Lombardo, C. (2019, July 10). Student debt forgiveness sounds good. What might happen if the government did it? Retrieved from

De Lea, B. (2019, July 30). How much AOC’s Green New Deal could cost the average American household. Retrieved from

Jefferson, T. (1802, November 29). Letter to Thomas Cooper. Retrieved from, accessed 19 Oct 2019


Fears of Climate Change

I am not sure about most, but I was personally both shocked and appalled at the act of the United Nations bringing in a 16 year old “child” to lambast and lecture the world about human generated climate change. My heart goes out to the child as she is used by her parents and their contemporaries to spread a message of fear under the guise of “science”, while ignoring the science of other experts, such as Judith Curry. Judith Currey has written numerous books on the topic of climate change, numerous peer reviewed journals, and other documents proving that while the earth may be experiencing some climate changes, it is not human generated. However, the voice of Judith has given up while she has decided to retire due to the toxicity of the climate change debate. Others of her contemporaries are soon to follow as they are giving up.  I don’t know about you, but I prefer to listen to credible experts before I will listen to an inexperienced child who is parroting what adults are telling her to say and have convinced her to be true.

My heart hurts for Greta Thunberg and I refuse to be one of those that criticize her. I believe she is stating things that she really believes to be truth based on her parents (and other adults she surrounds herself with), who both happen to be involved in the entertainment industry and know how to perform. Both her parents and the United Nations should be ashamed of themselves for using children like this, another reason that the United Nations should be disbanded as a useless, and completely godless, organization. Which serves as a nice transition into a more biblical perspective on the topic of climate change.

The flood at the time of Noah was a valid and truly global catastrophic event. Since the flood, the earth has experienced many more disasters, ranging from volcanic explosions to earthquakes and hurricanes. (Incidentally, NASA says that a single hurricane is the equivalent of 10,000 nuclear bombs; a volcano, 10,000 atomic bombs; and an earthquake, 42 tsar bombs—the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated). These frequently recurring natural disasters, each of which far surpasses any force of man, does not have the potential to wipe out all living creatures. Yet today there is a very real fear that human-generated climate change could do what nature has never been able to.

Facing this terror, millions of young people recently participated in 3,600 protests. Signs included messages such as “Stop denying the earth is dying” and “You will die of old age. We will die of climate change,” and chanting phrases such as “I speak for the trees and they said f*** you”.

While we can debate public policies, what cannot be ignored is genuine sense of fear the next generation feels. As Greta Thunberg, a sixteen-year-old climate activist in Generation Z, explained: “Adults keep saying: ‘We owe it to the young people to give them hope.’ But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.” Generation Z (those born after in 1999 or after) has been declared the “‘post-Christian’ generation,” and statistics seem to confirm this: “the percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the U.S. adult population” and less than 4 percent have a Biblical worldview. Without God, this generation will not experience His promise that “Perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18 NASB).

God created this world and only He has the power to destroy it. He made this clear in Job 38, and the Apostle Peter similarly affirms: “In the last days mockers will come…it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:3, 5-7 NASB).

For believers, faith—not fear—should guide our behavior. Fear is not God’s plan, but even if we find ourselves surrounded by it, we should remember His promise that “in the world you have tribulation, but take courage: I have overcome the world” (John 16:33 NASB).


Steve Graham, Hurricanes: The Greatest Storms on Earth,NASA Earth Observatory (November 1, 2006), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Dominic Utton, “Volcanoes: Nature’s Nuclear Bombs,The Express (April 16, 2010), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Robin Andrews, “The World’s Most Powerful Earthquake Ended With An Eruption And A Human Sacrifice,Forbes (June 25, 2017), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Hirji, Z., Champion, M. & Ghorayshi, A. Millions of young people around the world are leading strikes to call attention to the climate crisis,Buzz Feed News (September 20, 2019), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Millions attend global climate strike,BBC (September 20, 2019), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Global climate strike: Greta Thunberg and school students lead climate crisis,The Guardian (September 20, 2019), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Franklin Foer, “Greta Thunberg is Right to Panic,The Atlantic (September 20, 2019), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Atheism doubles among generation z,Barna Group (January 24, 2019), accessed 19 Oct 2019

Judith Curry retires, citing ‘craziness’ of climate science, accessed 13 Oct 2019


Freedom With Jesus

In 1 Peter 2:16, Peter reminds us that we should never claim our freedom as God’s people as way of justifying wrong or sinful (or “evil”) choices. To do so shows that we deeply misunderstand what it means to be a free servant of God. Nor are we to use “submission” as an excuse to do something sinful, simply because the government has told us to. 

1 Peter 2:16 (MSG) Exercise your freedom by serving God, not by breaking the rules. Treat everyone you meet with dignity. Love your spiritual family. Revere God. Respect the government.

In Acts 5:28-29 (Amp), the Sanhedrin confronted the apostles ordering them to stop preaching about Jesus, saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this Man’s blood on us [by accusing us as His murderers].” Then Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men [we have no other choice].”

The Jewish leaders feared that the people would hold them responsible for Jesus death. They were more concerned about maintaining their authority than embracing the truth.

But no matter what is happening across our nation or the world, we know that we can ALWAYS count on Jesus.

Hebrews 13:7-8 (MSG) Appreciate your pastoral leaders who gave you the Word of God. Take a good look at the way they live, and let their faithfulness instruct you, as well as their truthfulness. There should be a consistency that runs through us all. For Jesus doesn’t change—yesterday, today, tomorrow, he’s always totally himself.

As time moves on we move along with it. We are constantly changing. Change is good. That is why we attend church. We want to change. We want to become more like Jesus. We want to forsake our sins, to honor the Lord God, to be more loving and forgiving, and to let the world know what Jesus has done for us.

Change is good and sometimes necessary. But, though we may change, though circumstances may change, Jesus does not. He is always there for us, always dependable, always concerned for us.


1. It means that you can always depend upon his character to never change.

2. It means that you can always know that His love for you cannot decrease.

3. It means that you can always depend on His commitment to you in all things, at all times, in all ways.

4. Though the world changes, circumstances change, people change, and you change, Jesus never does.


We should never use our freedom in Christ as justification for sin choices. Instead, we should always keep at the forefront of our heart, and count on, that Jesus does not change. He is the same today as He was 2000 years ago. He will be the same tomorrow, even if our national and global culture changes for the worse. Praise God!!


References:, accessed 11 Oct 2019

Christian Standard Study Bible

The McArthur Study Bible, NASB


Faith, Love, and Culture – A Time to Reflect

Where is your heart on the following cultural items currently dividing our nation?

  • Abortion.
  • Gender identity
  • The LGBT agenda
  • Immigration and borders
  • Socialism v. Capitalism
  • Free Speech v. Political Correctness (1st Amendment)
  • President Trump’s impeachment
  • Marriage rights
  • Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)

Which of these items caused your heart to beat faster or a roll of your eyes? Which ones triggered compassion, mercy, peace, or forgiveness?  Which ones brought up anger and frustration? Or, did you simply not care about any of them?  Odds are that you had a physiological reaction one way or another to each one of these questions.

As you consider each question – can you think of any scriptures to support your perspective, opinion, or thoughts?  Do you look into your heart in search of the right direction, do you believe your scriptural support to be clear and concise for your positions on each question?  What do you believe to be God’s thoughts on them? Can you talk about each one of these with anyone – believer or non-believer – and maintain your composure in love and grace?

As we walk the journey towards protecting what each one of us believes is right and just for our national heritage as well as participating in the process of protecting our religious liberties, our path swaggers between our cultural and scriptural truths.   Not only do we have a treasure in Scripture, our Declaration of Independence and our US Constitution, our largest treasure exists within our heart. The result of our political, religious, and moral crises we face today, if you believe we have one, is that both the soul of the nation and the integrity of faith are now at stake – no matter your political philosophy or biblical theology.

As we consider the ramifications and scale of this crisis, it is easy to blur the lines as we compromise our faith with societal pressures and cultural worldviews with our opinions and biases. This is a condition of where our heart gate meshes with our thought gate, or worse, where our thoughts blur the truth of our hearts. For example:

  1. We have Christians that refer to Democrats as “Demoncrats”.  When this happens, we are grouping ALL democrats together and this is neither fair nor Christ-like; creating an opportunity for offense and blocking an opportunity to share the Gospel. Conservatives were uncomfortable when they were referred to as “deplorables”.
  2. We have Christians who inherently interpret scripture to support an argument versus proper application of scripture towards “life”, which is not healthy. I am of the opinion that Dave Barton of Wallbuilders and Jim Denison of the Denison Forum are two wonderful examples of those who do a fantastic job of blending scripture with American history and current cultural issues. Proper blending of the gospel message with American culture is paramount and distinctive of The Gospel of Christ.
  3. Many Christians spread inaccurate propaganda, or fake news, across social media inciting others to move along their echo chamber or harming the testimonies of others.  It is bad enough that fake news of a non Christian flavor are doing this. 
  4. Christians prefer bumper sticker quotes to careful nuanced reading of the Bible. We hate complexity and prefer the easy-to-quote lines that work well for mugs, Facebook posts, and arguments.

Nonetheless, despite our duty to be Christ-like and loving, we should also remain guarded and never betray the truth itself by indulging in misguided beliefs as if they are true, just for the sake of pleasing other people. In 2 Cor Ch 6, Paul is telling us that Christians should not unite with non-Christians in any [spiritual enterprise or relationship] that would be harmful to our own Christian testimonies. Nor should we engage in any activity or learning that can compromise our faith or that of anyone else (this does not mean that we disengage from cultural discourse). It is not a matter of trying to remain pure, but when the Gospel  is rightly taught it has the power of the living God to save lives. If we allow and permit the truth to be distorted, we are then accomplices in leading people astray from the path of salvation. That’s why Paul gave the warning to Timothy that we see in 1 Tim 4:16 where he tells him to watch himself in his teachings, by doing so he will be saving both himself and his hearers a lot of problems.

John 15:12. This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you

When discussing politics and culture, some may tend to present it differently than the Bible does, this is when Christians can run the danger of compromising their faith.  When this happens, the Holy Spirit will speak up and convict you, to which we should step back and review our actions, our words, and more importantly, our heart.  This is why scripture warns us to “guard our heart”.

Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. Keep your mouth free of perversity; keep corrupt talk far from your lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead; fix your gaze directly before you. Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways. Do not turn to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil (Proverbs 4:23-27).

In the Old Testament the word “heart” is used more than 800 times, but more than 200 times it deals with one’s thought life, emotions, the wellsprings of life, those things that motivate and mold us (Proverbs 23:7). In a complex society increasingly skeptical about claims related to absolute truth and indisputable facts, it’s increasingly hard to use the Bible to support anything without coming across as biased and prejudiced.

Jesus came to save sinners—all kinds. As the church, this truth should define the way we interact with others that have opposing points of view as people, as we communicate to them: God loves us all. We should not let our politics define us. Instead, we should first communicate that “We love you”, and we want to talk with you with a spirit of grace.

Another risk is when Church followers argue with other Church followers of different faith traditions and all those who are on their own unique spiritual journey. The challenge of any discussion (or debate) about culture, even when Scripture is applied, or as a Christian, is the muddlement of fact interpretation.  We should never disparage the rights of anyone to openly discuss or debate issues. But, what we should do, before making an argument about anything, is ensure our comments and our facts are correct. Else, our credibility is shot (pun not intended) right from the start.

We can see an example of scripture selection and interpretation in Deut 23:1 and in Isaiah 56.

  1. Deut 23:1.  “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.”
  2. In Isaiah 56, God welcomes eunuchs.

In Deut we read that an emasculated man cannot enter the assembly of the Lord while in Isaiah 56 we read that God welcomes eunuchs.  Which one is correct?  Both scriptures must be placed into context, to which I would encourage you to study both and draw your own conclusion. If we came together with our answers, most of us would not be surprised if we don’t have the same conclusions. Why? Because, as humans, we are operating under different theologies: truth theology (Word study and revelation knowledge) and testimony theology (life experiences, background, demographics). All theologies and doctrines are flawed to some degree due to our human nature, but that doesn’t change the truth that is within our hearts.

This impacts our interpretation of Scripture as it applies to whom we vote for, which policies we support, whether we are progressive or not, and how hard we will argue a point with others.  We are all reading the same bible and the same scripture we but still come to differing conclusions. Every Christian denomination, theological sect, and faith-based political platform asserts their ‘biblical’ status and this can be confusing.

Luke 6:27-28  But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

We may not all have the same answers to the questions Jesus asked and prompted, but they must be asked; and perhaps it is our conversation about them together that could help heal a broken nation. In another one of his letters, Paul talks about the pride that comes from religion and an obsession to be better than others as an example of idolatry, where we prioritize our desires over the Creator’s design (Galatians 4:8–9).

Paul’s concern for the Galatians was that before they knew God, they were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. “So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world?

But if the term ‘biblical’ means justifying something based on verses and ideas that are found within the Bible, then almost everything can legitimately claim to be ‘Bible-based,’ because the Bible can be used to rationalize and support almost any idea or agenda. If you are looking for verses with which to support slavery, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to abolish slavery, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to oppress women, you will find them. If you are looking for verses with which to liberate or honor women, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to wage war, you will find them. If you are looking for reasons to promote peace, you will find them. If you are looking for an outdated, irrelevant ancient text, you will find it. If you are looking for truth, believe me, you will find it.

This is why there are times when the most instructive question to bring to the Lord within Scripture is not what does it say? But what am I looking for? I suspect Jesus knew this when he said, “ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.” If you want to do violence in this world, you will always find the weapons. If you want to heal, you will always find the medication.

“What is the most Christlike way?” is a goal Christians should always be pursuing. The subtle difference from ‘biblical’ to ‘Christlike’ has radical connotations. Because instead of being centered upon the text, we’re now centering our faith on the person of Christ, which is what the Bible was intended for in the first place.

The semantics are important to understand because the different terms present two completely contrasting ideas. One is based on textual interpretations and opinions, while the other is founded upon the words and actions of the living savior of the world. If you’re a Christian, you should always err on the side of Jesus. But if we’re not careful, it’s easy to idolize the Bible while simultaneously ignoring the very message of Christ.

1 Peter 4:10. As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

If our sinful nature had totally died upon regeneration, there would be no need for sanctification, because we would already have it.  This is why the secret of sanctification is to develop in our hearts a growing intensity of desire to please God, to be obedient to Christ. That’s why we are called to fill our minds with the Word of God that we may know more of the love of God, the majesty of God, and the excellence of Christ.

But no Christian in this world achieves 100% consistent desire to obey God only. There is a powerful desire left over from the fallen nature.  Romans Chapter 7 concludes with Paul’s acute awareness of the sinful side of his nature, which serves as strong evidence that he is saved, for the Holy Spirit operates in the believer to quicken his awareness of sin. When it comes to opinions about politics and culture, this can be a challenge. Perhaps this is why too many Christians have walked away from cultural debate. The good news is that we can learn.

There comes a time when it is appropriate to stop, rest, reflect, and ponder. You can meditate on what has been accomplished, what still requires doing, and, more importantly, spend some time in quiet, away from the noise. The pleadings of the Holy Spirit will tug at the heart strings if you are thinking incorrectly or improperly focused.

In the lead up to the 2020 election we’re being told that our primary choice is between different candidates and political parties. I believe the real choice is something deeper and more urgent. I believe the real choice is between the politics of Jesus and anti-Christ politics.

There seems to be a clear choice, a real and stark choice, going on in this country between the politics of Jesus and anti-Christ politics. I believe that the fear of the other, the hatred of the other, and violence against the other are the core of anti-Christ politics. And the love of the other, calling the other your neighbor, is at the heart of the politics of Jesus.

Jesus said eight different times, “Be not afraid …” Anti-Christ politics says, “Be afraid. I’m going to make you more afraid.” Jesus says that leadership is about service. Anti-Christ politics says it’s about wealth and power — it’s about winning and losing. Jesus says that we should not be lazy. Anti-Christ politics wants to take from those that work and redistribute to the lazy.  Jesus politics tells the church to take care of the sick. Anti-Christ politics says that healing is the responsibility of government. The Bible says we are all made in the image of God, but anti-Christ politics says, “No, some people are more valuable than other people.”

Jesus politics says that we, the people, need to be stewards of the resources He has given us. Anti-Christ politics says that the government knows more than us about our needs.  Jesus politics says to follow the Lord in all of our endeavors. Anti-Christ politics says that God is not necessary, man can take care of business. In Jesus politics, how we treat the “least of these” is the test of our politics.

1 Tim 5:8. But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.


Perhaps when we realize where our politics reside in our hearts, we’ll cease being a Pharisaic teacher of the law and we’ll become a gospel witness. We’ll start loving our neighbors as people made in the image of God and feeling compassion for them in their weakness. We will see in the face of every sinner a reflection of the corruption that afflicts our own hearts, the fruit of the rebellion we have participated in. Then we may see the truth of our culture and how only God can truly revive our nation. Utopia on earth is not possible until Jesus returns. Until then, we are in a spiritual war for our nation, the Leviathan of the Old Testament has reared his ugly head.

Mere political activism (as important as that is) won’t defeat our demons alone. The moral, religious, and political battles between our angels and our demons have become the “spiritual warfare” of our time, using the language of the Apostle Paul.

People often say they just believe the Bible and do what it says. This is never true! Everyone who reads the Bible makes priority decisions about which scripture to give more weight to. We make the judgement that certain verses, or certain voices within scripture, have higher authority than others. That is, if we rely on the Bible at all.

Paul writes in Philippians 4:10-14 “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,”, it is very encouraging and empowering. It sounds like a down payment on all our hopes and dreams… unless we read the full context. Then we see that Paul is most likely saying that Christ can strengthen us to bear up under terrible, painful circumstances—like being imprisoned for your faith. That’s a great promise, but one not quite so many people hope to need.

Love one another, but let’s do it in truth. Let’s love each other enough that we are able to leave a legacy for our children that continues to allow them the freedom to choose, the freedom to speak, the freedom to defend themselves, and the freedom to live their worth. Most of all, let’s love our children enough to leave them with the freedom to worship and the freedom to praise God. That, my friends, is a faith worth fighting for.  If we are not careful, we will lose the “legal” right to do all things.


References:, accessed 25 Sep 2019, accessed 25 Sep 2019, accessed 25 Sep 2019, accessed 7 Oct 2019, accessed 8 Oct 2019, accessed 8 Oct 2019


Abortion and the 14th Amendment

The movement against abortion is generally construed as activity controlled and sustained by Christians, although there are also deists and secularists that are pro-life as well. Nonetheless, there is validity in the argument that those of the Christian faith are leading the charge, with much of the evidence pointing to the use of Scripture to advocate for the right of the child.  However, there are also professed Christians that are in full support of abortion, primarily when it is addressed as a women’s rights issue versus making it about the child.  
Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg (an Episcopalian) has used scripture to indicate that God is ok with abortion, or, at least that scripture can be interpreted that way. He opens the door for different interpretations while deriding evangelicals for “hypocrisy and immorality”. He is a great case study about the use of Scripture to support this debate. However, it becomes even more difficult when in debate with a deist or non-believer. Using scripture with non-believers to fight against abortion is not going to get anywhere.  
But, praise God that there is an avenue from the perspective of our founding fathers, contained within the constitution itself. They laid forth a path that allows our great nation to make amendments and changes to the constitution while also placing restrictions on what can be done.  This is what led us to the 14th Amendment.  
However, before we get there, allow me an opportunity to share something that many are not aware of in regards to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.  
In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion on demand was a “legal right” for women across the country.  To clear up a misconception or incorrect interpretation, the Supreme Court DID NOT declare in Roe v. Wade that abortion itself is a constitutional right. The Supreme Court ruling left room for Congress to pass a “Life at Conception Act”.
A Life at Conception Act declares that unborn children are “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment. A “person” is entitled to legal protection.  
In 1973,  the Supreme Court admitted that there was one thing that would cause the case for legal abortion to collapse. This is not a biblical thing, it is an admission of the limitation of science of that time.  
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins…the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer”.  
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case (Roe], of course, collapses, for the fetus right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.”  
The 14th Amendment states “….nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” The Life at Conception Act would force Congressional support of the 14th Amendment when it comes to the unborn:  
“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  
Science today is proving, unequivocally, that an unborn baby is alive. Some states have passed legislation restriction abortions once there is a recognizable heart beat.  But, this is not far enough when it comes to protecting the rights of the unborn. Many believe, as do we, that life begins at conception.   There are two bills in front of both the House and the Senate indicating that life begins at conception – referred to as the “Life at Conception Act”.  
  1. The House version of the “Life at Conception Act (HR 616)” can be found here:
  2. The Senate version of the “Life at Conception Act (S. 159)” can be found here:


The National Pro-Life Alliance has created a petition in support of these bills and is asking that anyone and everyone sign a petition in support of the Life Act. The link to this petition follows:


This group has a goal of one million signatures. If achieved, this petition will add significant weight to the bill when it is put up for a vote in Congress. Would you be willing to add your voice to this petition?




The Doo-Doo Dilemma

It is amazing what we can find in Scripture. The Lord has given us an answer for everything in life, including how to manage and handle doo-doo.

Deuteronomy 23:12-14 “Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. For the Lord your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.”

Scriptures even provide guidance on how to handle and manage our excrement. However, as embarrassing as it is, San Francisco has been labeled the “doo-doo capital of the US”, but the issue also exists in Los Angeles and San Diego with some reports that the poop dilemma is also expanding into New York City (although nothing like the cities of California). The city of Austin TX has recently passed and implemented policies similar to those found in Los Angeles – we will have to wait and see if the impacts are similar to what is occurring on the West Coast.

The majority of the nation’s homeless people now live in California. But there was no “defecation crisis”—a term usually associated with rural India—in the 1930s, even with unemployment at 25%, vagabonds roaming the country, and shantytowns and “Hoovervilles” springing up everywhere.

Seattle Washington is also not immune from a feces problem. In King County, the Sheriff put a program together to regularly powerwash the sidewalks of the harsh feces and urine smell around the courthouse, but, city councilman Larry Gossett closed the program down because the hoses from the washers were considered racist, a reminder of a time years ago when water hoses were used against black Americans. This is not to ridicule Mr. Gossett, but it is a silly policy decision.

The resolution to solve the problem appears to be a simple one, but the leadership of these cities, San Francisco in particular, does not deem it important enough. While they are likely not aware of the humane policy and direction about the handling of feces and human waste as articulated in Scripture, they have removed God, or even basic Christian/Judeo values from their surroundings, indicating that they would not follow or adhere to any biblical guidance anyway – they would most likely strike it down with hateful feedback. Their leadership states “love and compassion” of the homeless problem but it seems that they would rather allow filth and suffering to continue rather than adhere to or listen to anything that the bible has to say. In San Francisco, they deem it more important to spend time on rules designating the NRA a terrorist organization or changing the classification of a “felon” to “justice-involved person”.

These are the policies and leadership direction as mandated by cities that are considered to be the most liberal in the nation.  So, how do we look at this through the lens of a Christian?  Is it love to continue to allow the current homeless catastrophe to continue, or, is it love to continue to point out the fallacy if the policy direction that the city is taking?  Why is this even important to those of us that do not live in San Francisco? It is not our problem. Because the issues in these cities are expanding outward and the future of our cultural, political, and dare I say “spiritual” well being are at stake nationwide.

The candidates from the Democratic Party believe in, and support, similar policies of those in the California and Washington cities. While they have subtle differences, the candidate pool wants to take over more services that they believe are the responsibility of government. And, they want to tax the American citizenry even more to manage these services.  Outside of the military and law enforcement, do we have any examples of where the government runs things better than organizations from the private sector?  Does the government run healthcare better? Education? Housing? 

“When Humpty Dumpy fell off the wall, even all of the Kings Men and all the Kings horses could not put Humpy Dumpty together again.  The government could not help Humpty Dumpty in his most dire time of need. This is not a partisan statement, this is statement about government in general. We should never depend on our government. We must learn how to fish and manage our own lives [the way our Founding Fathers intended]. Too many believe that our government will put our country back together again, as if we are expecting all of the answers to come from our elected officials. It is unfortunate today that far too many believers, are expecting the solutions to our problems to land on Air Force one.” ~ Tony Evans

God gave us marvelous minds to  use —to study, learn, observe, analyze, judge and think. You see, God wants His people to zealously read and study, to think and meditate. He wants us to be well-informed regarding the major geopolitical, cultural and spiritual issues and events of our time. God deplores ignorance, indifference and being “dull of hearing” (Hebrews 5:11).

Because of this, the Bible should be the prism, lens and filter by which we can accurately perceive and judge all other information. It enables us to develop a godly worldview—the framework and foundation by which we can accurately interpret all that is going on in the world. We can then understand our confusing world with amazing clarity, sense and logic!

Some people ignore news because it’s mostly bad news that interferes with feeling happy and comfortable. But that’s choosing escapism over facing reality and obeying Christ’s command to “deny” yourself (Luke 9:23). We are not to selfishly shut our eyes and hearts to the suffering of others, becoming indifferent, complacent or fatalistic.

While we all have compassion, empathy and a desire for mercy when it comes to the homeless, the way the city leadership is managing their dilemma is skewed, problematic, and a strain on the community. There are churches and secular organizations working with the homeless to the best of their ability but it is not enough.  Perhaps what is needed is a change in policy – changes that will truly help both the homeless problem and the doo-doo dilemma. Current leadership is wrong – the facts and current conditions speak to this.

The West Coast requires our prayers and a significant move of God. He can do anything – even influencing the hearts of the right people who have the ability and talent to clean up the mess of these cities. But He requires our participation in prayer.


References:, accessed 6 Sep 2019, accessed 6 Sep 2019, accessed 6 Sep 2019, accessed 6 Sep 2019, accessed 6 Sep 2019, accessed 18 Sep 2019, accessed 18 Sep 2019


Church Tax Exemption: Blessing or Obstacle?

The first recorded tax exemption for churches was during the Roman Empire, when Constantine, Emperor of Rome from 306-337, granted the Christian church a complete exemption from all forms of taxation following his supposed conversion to Christianity circa 312.

Within the United States, churches received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, but they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country’s founding. The United States is the only country around the globe that currently offers tax exemption for churches. Additionally, the USA is the only nation that affords a tax deduction for those that tithe or donate to churches. 

Is it time for the Church to seriously consider “voluntarily” ending their tax-exemption (non-profit) status? 

Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution. However, if the tax exemption were removed and the government started taxing churches, the government would then be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

Congressional Committee Meeting – 19 Sep 2019

However, the debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained. During a hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee on 19 Sep 2019, Democrats spent almost three hours vociferating on “How the Tax Code Subsidizes Hate.” Vocally, they were speaking about and pointing fingers specifically at the Christian Church and Christian organizations that they argue are “subsidized by the tax payer” to spread hate about LGBTQ, immigration and a few other agenda items. Their solution? Strip mainstream Christian organizations — and anyone else guilty of the Democrats definition of “hate” — of their tax-exempt status.

There was no verbal mention of other religious organizations, only Christian organizations. Just for a second, let’s remove the tax exempt portion of the discussion and review this from the lens of who the Democrats were speaking out against. The three hour debate was a vieled threat and attack against the Christian Church and Christian Organizations. This appears to demonstrate how the Democratic platform continues to show itself as anti-God and anti-Scripture while forging forward on their path towards legislating behavior and legislating beliefs through fear and coercion. However, the democratic majority did rely on a list given to them from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which listed mainstream churches as hate organization. The truth is that the SPLC is a liberal front and routinely attacks conservative organizations that are socially skewed as Christian. More on the SPLC later.


We MUST briefly talk about Christian love, since Hate has been brought to the forefront.

How we believe we are loved will determine how we love; conversely, how we love will influence how those around us love and how those around them love. This means that the consequences of how we love will stretch far beyond our perception in both time and space. This might be a bit deep. This is why it is critical WHOM your god, our Christian God, says we should love.

True Christian love is perfectly outlined in the most fully developed commands directly from the words of Jesus from Matthew 22:37-39:

And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

True Christians should not hate. Jesus told us that the Great Commandments above all others is to love our God and love our neighbor – regardless of persuasion and affiliation. If you are a Christian and spread hate about the people that are living in an LGBTQ lifestyle, then you are scripturally wrong. If you speak out in hatred towards those classified as “illegal immigrants”, then you are scripturally wrong. This does not mean that you should not, or cannot, speak about policies that are geared to such cultural topics as LGBTQ or immigration – this is being a steward as a citizen of the country in which you reside. But, the democrats have made it a point to categorize anyone as a “hater”, even if speaking out against policy decisions or cultural mistakes while simultaneously loving on people. This is the rub….

Nonetheless, we are told to speak out in love, not hate. It is ok to speak out against policies as long as you speak out in truth and ensure that your heart is focused on the love of God and His people – all people.

One of the most emphasized virtues in the Bible is to love the truth, and to tell the truth. In Galatians 4:16, Paul the Apostle asked a rhetorical question, “Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” – this question has become an accurate descriptor for a large segment of the culture today. Sometimes, speaking the truth even if not popular is love. Jesus did it, we should to. Nonetheless, check the condition of the heart.


Christian Hate Groups?

In 1947, the US Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education that “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

On 19 Sep 2019, the Democratic majority committee said they were concerned about the government subsidizing groups that millions of Americans would find abhorrent and Republican minority said they feared that First Amendment rights could be infringed ending some groups’ tax-exempt status. The committee members focused on 60 groups that have been designated as “hate groups” by the SPLC. The Family Research Council is included on that list.

Also on the list are mainstream church organizations, on a list that also includes KKK affiliated groups. Former SPLC spokesman Mark Potok recently revealed an animus against organizations on the list. He said the SPLC’s “aim in life” is to “destroy these groups.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is also among the more than 60 tax-exempt “hate groups” that attracted the Democrats’ ire. The ADF is the legal organization that defended the cake baker from Colorado in front of the US Supreme Court as well as other faith based organizations being discriminated against.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that tax exemptions can’t be denied based on the viewpoint that a group communicates. In Speiser v. Randall (1958), the Supreme Court upheld a property tax exemption to people and organizations that advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government. The Tax Code may indeed subsidize hate, just as it subsidizes Socialism, Satanism, and a wide variety of other dangerous and offensive ideas. Under the First Amendment, tax exemptions have to be distributed without discrimination based on viewpoint; that means that evil views have to be treated the same way as good views.

If we are a true Pluralist culture, then Christians that desire to maintain tax exempt status must accept the idea that opposing organizations, such as the Church of Satan, will also qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)3. Of course, the IRS should not provide tax exemption for organizations that incite violence against individuals or groups of people. Such organizations are already illegal. But attempts to get the IRS to blacklist “hate groups” would have devastating consequences, even without the SPLC’s bias involved.


Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden.

A 2010 survey by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover. If these churches were obliged to pay taxes, their existence would be threatened and government would thus be impeding religious expression.

The law against churches intervening in political campaigns was passed by the US Congress in 1954. Since then, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been successful in using the law to revoke the tax-exempt status of only one church: the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, NY, which had placed an advertisement in USA Today and the Washington Times rebuking Bill Clinton four days before the 1992 presidential election.

Some Pastors simply refrain from talking about cultural issues – this is the safety zone. By refraining from talking about culture they have no fear from the tax man, AND, they have no fear of offending congregants that may have hold different points of view.  It is not about being confrontational, we can talk about cultural issues with both “Respect and Love”. Holiness is separation from sin, not separation from sinners. Put another way, holiness does not mean separation from people in the culture around us, but separation for the sin in culture around us.

We need more cultural engagers and we need more churches to engage. However, we should judge culture based on solid biblical principals in order to both heal and inform – not condemn people to hell or judgement. That we should leave to God.


Global Taxation?

A vast majority of Americans may not realize that the USA is the only nation that currently offers tax exemption or benefits when it comes to religious organizations. Many European countries, for example, have religious taxes. In some cases, such taxes are voluntary while in other countries taxpayers have the option to divert a certain percentage of their income to either a religious group or the state. In many cases, the churchgoer pays the tax as part of their personal income taxes and the government passes the money along to the church. A few examples as outlined by Pew Research:

  • In Italy, taxpayers pay an “eight per thousand” tax (0.8%) and express their preference for whether the money should go to one of the religious groups listed (including the Catholic Church, several Protestant groups and the Jewish community) or the state.
  • Spanish law “provides taxpayers the option of allocating a percentage of their income tax to the Catholic Church but not to other religious groups,” according to the U.S. State Department.
  • The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark – the country’s national church – receives funding through a specific church tax imposed on members and also receives additional support from the Danish government. Denmark reports that nearly 80% of its people were church members as of 2012.
  • Two other northern European countries – Sweden and Finland – also collect church taxes from members, both at rates that range from 1% to 2%.
  • In Switzerland, church taxes are imposed at the canton level; most of the 26 cantons, or states, collect a church tax in some form. In some cantons, private companies must pay a church tax, according to the State Department, which also reports that some cantons collect taxes “on behalf of the Jewish community,” but that “Islamic and other ‘nontraditional’ religious groups are not eligible.”
  • Iceland’s church taxes are collected from members of registered religious groups – including secular humanist organizations.
  • Croatia finances the salaries and pensions of clergy and the running of church schools and universities, and it maintains and restores church sacral objects and buildings.

In some of these countries, there are churches that will only serve those who have paid up. For instance, the Catholic Church in Germany has forbidden those who do not pay their church taxes from receiving communion.

My answer – tax exemption gives the government control over what churches can preach about the Gospel as it relates to culture and government. While the IRS would have control to shut churches down that cannot pay their taxes (if tax exemption were removed), we cannot allow the government to control the Gospel message. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates Churches should be tax exempt, only that they should pay taxes when they are called for (Matthew 22:21).
Perhaps it is time for the Church to remove itself from 501(c)3 tax exemption and operate just as other business organizations operate. Or, at a minimum, it is time for Church’s to consider investments into for-profit businesses if tithes and offerings suffer if tax exemption is removed. Just a thought – this is how the Church operates in most countries around the globe.

The problem – too many tax paying citizens across the US have been spoiled by the tax exemption. Some have unfortunately lost focus on the heart as the source for our giving.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 (ESV) – The Cheerful Giver

“The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”



Keith S. Blair, JD. (Feb 2009), Praying for a Tax Break: Churches Political Speech and the Loss of Section 501c3 Tax Exempt Status, Denver University Law Review

Averil Cameron, PhD. (2005). The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 12: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193-337,

Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe, PhD. (17 Feb 2011). Christianity and the Roman Empire,


The Business of Impeachment

Hearings have begun in Washington DC against President Donald Trump. The stated intent of these hearings is to determine if formal impeachment charges will be filed against President Trump, which could then be used to kick off the “actual” impeachment trial.  In commemoration of an impeachment process that I do not believe is likely to end in the removal of Trump from office, I was curious about the history of impeachment. 

Impeachment as an institution has its roots in ancient Rome and it was Rome that the Founding Fathers were thinking about when it was written into the Constitution. Only senators could be impeached in ancient Rome—the emperor could not, leading to a number of chaos-making political assassinations. 

The Founding Fathers wrote impeachment into the constitution for the purpose of removing an official who had “rendered himself obnoxious,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin. Without impeachment, Franklin argued, citizens’ only recourse was assassination, which would leave the political official “not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character.

Franklin, and others like Alexander Hamilton, paid special attention to impeachment because British politics didn’t have a structure for impeaching the leader. The British crown—the king or queen—is literally unimpeachable. And the Founding Fathers didn’t think that impeachment should happen for just any reason. For example, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers that grounds for impeachment should be:

“Those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

The founders also debated on the criteria for impeachment, settling on treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors against the state. “High crimes and misdemeanors” was another term that originated in British law.

James Madison saw the Impeachment Clause as “indispensable . . . for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” Elbridge Gerry stated that impeachment was needed as a check against presidential abuse of power. “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them,” he argued. George Mason then refuted Morris’ argument that only the President’s assistants should face the impeachment process. “No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?” he asked.

Impeachment remains as a rarely used process to potentially remove the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States” if Congress finds them guilty of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That is, until 1973.

The impeachment process is governed under Article 1, Section 3, of the US Constitution – in particular, clauses 6 and 7. Article 1 of the US Constitution covers the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws “necessary and proper” to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states.


The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


While there have been demands for the impeachment of a few presidents, only two—Andrew Johnson and William J. Clinton—have actually been impeached; however, both were acquitted by the United States Senate and not removed from office. Eight people have actually been impeached and convicted in Congress – all were judges who faced charges including perjury, tax evasion, bribery, and in one case, supporting the Confederacy.

Thirteen sitting Presidents have either been threatened with impeachment or had resolutions filed against them. 

President John Tylor [Whig] (1841-1845) – faced on impeachment resolution which was defeated. Tylor was the first impeachment proceeding against a president in American history

President James Buchanan [Democrat] (1857-1861) – hearings were held but there was no impeachment resolution filed.

President Andrew Johnson [Democrat] (1865-1869) – subject to three impeachment resolutions, neither of which succeeded.

President Ulysses Grant [Republican] (1869-1877) – threats and measures given, but nothing happened

President Herbert Hoover [Republican] (1929-1933) – subject to two resolutions had been entered but they were both tabled

President Harry Truman [Democrat] (1945-1953) – two were put in front of Judiciary Committee, but the committee sat on them

President Richard Nixon [Republican] (1969-1974)  – faced 17 impeachment resolutions.

President Ronald Reagans [Republican] (1981-1989)  was subject to two, but both failed.

President George H.W. Bush [Republican] (1989-1993) was also subject to two, but both resolutions were voted down.

President Bill Clinton [Democrat] (1993-2000) was subject to one.

President George W. Bush [Republican] (2001-2009) – was subject to three. All three failed during a vote.

President Barack Obama [Democrat] (2009-2017) was subject to one resolution that was filed and died in Judiciary Committee

President Donald Trump (Republican] (2017-    ) has been subject to five resolutions so far. Inquiry ongoing.


Prior to 1973, eight (8) impeachment resolutions had been filed; however, since 1973, there have been thirty-one impeachment resolutions filed. 

President John Tylor is the only president to have threats of impeachment that does not belong to one of our current political parties (he was a member of the Whig Party).

There have been 7 impeachment resolutions filed against Presidents from the Democratic Party and thirty-one impeachment resolutions filed against Presidents from the Republican Party.

It may come as no surprise that many historians believe that some of the impeachment threats were purely politically motivated in order to discredit the sitting President from being elected for a following term. It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the current impeachment hearings will have against President Trump. Unfortunately, regardless of the outcome, it may be a decade or more before an unbiased and more credible analysis is made.


Is the truth your enemy?

One of the most emphasized virtues in the Bible is to love the truth, and to tell the truth.

In Zechariah 8:16 we are commanded to Speak the truth to one anotherand in Psalm 15:2 we are promised that whoever speaks truth in his heartwill be blessed and live with God (Psalms 15:2). Jesus Himself declared I am…the truth(John 14:6) and asked God to sanctify them [the disciples]in truth(John 17:17).

In Galatians 4:16, Paul the Apostle asked a rhetorical question, “Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”  – this question has become an accurate descriptor for a large segment of the culture today. This is especially true with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, who regularly ban or block users for sharing Biblical truth.

Consider the case of PragerU. They quote Philippians 4:8 when explaining that their videos promote “what is true, what is good, what is excellent”. They have garnered a staggering two billion views, often featuring a presenter giving a Biblical perspective on events in the news. Despite this popularity, YouTube actively restricts more than 100 of their videos. They censor their videos that are pro-Israel, anti-abortion, pro-Ten Commandments, promote two genders (male and female), condemn persecution of Christians, and other such topics.

But PragerU is not the only one being censored for telling the truth. Candice Owens, a black Christian commentator and civil rights leader was cut from Facebook for sharing statistics proving that the presence of a father in the home is one of the most accurate indicators of poverty in the black community. For sharing evidence affirming what the Bible teaches, she lost access to her account.

Additionally, Facebook has closed dozens of Catholic websites (with a following of nearly 8 million). They also blocked a Gospel song called “What Would Heaven Look Like,” which called for unity among various people groups. (Facebook claimed that the song had “political content” and deleted it.) There are many similarly ridiculous examples.

The fight to be able to openly disseminate truth has led the White House to set up a website to report instances of censorship, because, as the page explains:

“Social media platforms should advance freedom of speech. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.”

Some state legislatures have begun considering legislation that would allow citizens to take legal action when Christian or conservative principles (such as pro-life) are targeted. May the nation return to a point where we ask God to “Lead me in Your truth and teach me” (Psalms 25:5). When this happens, we will no longer consider those who proclaim Biblical truth to be enemies.


References:, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019, accessed 27 May 2019


Declaration of Independence – Chapter 3

Facts and Statistics About the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
This has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language“, containing “the most potent and consequential words in American history”. The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy and argued that it is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.
The Declaration is a beautifully written document that officially announced that the United States were no longer part of Great Britain. That these United States were establishing a new idea of government; one whose leadership did not govern by divine right, but was chosen by the people for the people themselves. This new government’s job was to protect the “Rights” of its citizens.
The Declaration was signed by 56 delegates and contains 27 grievances against the King of England. The Declaration of Independence is the birth certificate for the United States and serves as the Foundational Document for the United States of America. The US Constitution is built upon the Declaration and was written in a way intended to ensure protections against grievances outlined in the Declaration.
Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nearly half (24) held seminary or Bible school degrees.
Two of the Signers were 26 at the time of the signing. Edward Rutledge (November 23, 1749) edged out Thomas Lynch Jr. (August 5, 1749) by just over three months to be the youngest Signer.
John Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister, and Lyman Hall was a pastor, teacher, and physician. Eight Signers were born in Europe. James Smith, George Taylor and Matthew Thorton were born in Ireland. Robert Morris and Button Gwinnett were born in England. James Wilson and John Witherspoon were born in Scotland. Finally, Francis Lewis was born in Wales. Pennsylvania had the largest number of representatives with nine Signers. The second largest group came from Virginia, which had seven Signers. Four signers were physicians, 24 were lawyers, and one was a printer. The remaining signers were mostly merchants or plantation owners.
While there were early versions that stated that we have inalienable rights, in the final version, we have unalienable rights.
The Declaration of Independence has been read and talked about more than any other American document. There are many books, essays, and treatises written about it. And yet, there are many different opinions about what the ideas in it really mean.  It helps to give a look into what it means to be American.
Some believe the declaration is all about individualism. Others see it as promoting civic engagement and participation in groups.
Historians see the Declaration as a way to define who an American is. Judges and lawyers use the document in the political process when creating and interpreting laws. In the next Chapter, we will begin to break down the Declaration into digestible components so that it can digested, explained, and understood. You will even get a chance to try to decide on your own point of view.
“We find it hard to believe that liberty could ever be lost in this country. But it can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our profound belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases.”
~President Harry Truman, December 15, 1952
“We must be unanimous; there must be no pulling different ways; we must hang together.”
~John Hancock, July 4, 1776
“I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.”
~Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852
Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?”
~Benjamin Rush, Pennsylvania delegate, July 20, 1811


“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever…”
~Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.


“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual…… Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
~John Hancock, History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.


“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see”
~Benjamin Franklin


“The gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations!”
~Benjamin Rush


“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
~George Washington


“Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”
~James Madison
Allen Jayne, (2015). Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and Theology. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 48
Benson J. Lossing, (1870). Lives of the signers of the Declaration of American independence. Evans, Stoddart & Co. p. 292.
Benson J. Lossing, (1888). Our Country: A Household History for All Readers, from the Discovery of America to the Present Time, Volume 3. Appendix: Amies Publishing Company. p. 1-10.
Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, P.162
Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 180-182
Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 200-202
Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 224–225
David McCullough, (2015). 1776, Simon and Schuster The Declaration of Independence: A History, The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
Dumas Malone, (1948). Jefferson the Virginian (Jefferson and His Time, Vol. 1 , Little, Brown and Company; 17th ptg. Edition, p. 221
Federalist No. 39, paragraph 2
Ian Christie and Benjamin Labaree, (1976). Empire or independence, 1760-1776: A British-American dialogue on the coming of the American Revolution, Phaidon Press; 1st Edition edition, p. 31
John Adams, (1776). “Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 – May 15, 1776”. Letter to James Warren
John M. Murrin, Paul E. Johnson, James M. McPherson, Alice Fahs, Gary Gerstle, (2013). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Volume I: To 1877, Concise Edition. Cengage Learning. p. 121
Joseph Ellis, (2007). American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies in the Founding of the Republic, Knopf Publishing, pg. 55–56
Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 53-57
Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 125-128
Richard Kollen, (2004). Lexington: From Liberty’s Birthplace to Progressive Suburb. Arcadia Publishing. p. 27
Robert Middlekauff, (2007). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789,  Oxford University Press; Revised, Expanded edition, pg. 241–242
Stephen E. Lucas, (1989). Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document, Southern Illinois University Press, p. 85
Stephen E. Lucas, (2012). The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence  Thomas Jefferson, (1825). TO HENRY LEE – Thomas Jefferson The Works, vol. 12 (Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826
, accessed 10 Sep 2019


Declaration of Independence – Chapter 2

Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new–all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of the United States of America included them all. That birth was unique, not only in the immensity of its later impact on the course of world history and the growth of democracy, but also because so many of the threads in our national history run back through time to come together in one place, in one time, and in one document: the Declaration of Independence. 

The year 1776, celebrated as the birth year of the nation and for the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was for those who carried the fight for independence forward a year of all too few victories, of sustained suffering, disease, hunger, desertion, cowardice, disillusionment, defeat, terrible discouragement, and fear, as they would never forget, but also of phenomenal courage and bedrock devotion to country, and that, too, they would never forget.

The people at the time the Declaration was signed were full aware that the Declaration itself was nothing but that, a declaration, without military success against what was the most formidable foe at that time. John Dickinson was one member of Congress who opposed the Declaration, referring to it as a “skiff made of paper.” Reverend Ezra Stiles wrote in his diary:

“Thus the congress has tied a Gordian knot, which the Parliament will find they can neither cut, nor untie. The thirteen united colonies now rise into an Independent Republic among the kingdoms, states, and empires on earth….And have I lived to see such an important and astonishing revolution?”

Everyone around the “new” United States, saw Washington and his army as the one means of deliverance of American Independence and all that was promised in the Declaration of Independence. The Congress of 1776 was operating based on conditions that had been deteriorating for over a decade prior but the Congress did not take their Declaration of Independence lightly, they fully recognized what they were doing. By the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” so that they and their posterity (us!) could enjoy both spiritual and civil liberties to a degree unknown in the world at that time. That pledge literally cost many of them their lives and fortunes.


How Did America Get To This Point?

Relations had been deteriorating between the colonies and the mother country since 1763 at the end of the French and Indian War. The Bank of England had been depleted largely in part because of the French and Indian War and they needed to replenish the “royal coffers”. The answer to the dilemma by the English Parliament was to enact a series of measures to increase revenue from the colonies, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767. Parliament believed that these acts were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep them in the British Empire.

Many colonists, however, had developed a different conception of the empire. The colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, and colonists argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them. This tax dispute was part of a larger divergence between British and American interpretations of the British Constitution and the extent of Parliament’s authority in the colonies. The orthodox British view, dating from the “Glorious Revolution of 1688“, was that Parliament was the supreme authority throughout the empire, and so, by definition, anything that Parliament did was constitutional. The Glorious Revolution led to the English Declaration of Rights that would later be used by the Continental Congress to write their own Declaration of Independence. The colonies held to the idea that the British Constitution recognized certain fundamental rights that no government could violate, not even Parliament. After the Townshend Acts, some essayists even began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all. Anticipating the arrangement of the British Commonwealth, by 1774 American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson were arguing that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown.

By the early 1770s, more and more colonists were becoming convinced that Parliament intended to take away their freedom. In fact, the Americans saw a pattern of increasing oppression and corruption happening all around the world. Parliament was determined to bring its unruly American subjects to heel so by early 1775, Britain began preparing for war. The first fighting broke out in April in Massachusetts and in August, the King had declared the colonists “in a state of open and avowed rebellion.” For the first time, many colonists began to seriously consider cutting ties with Britain. Thomas Paine published a pamphlet titled “Common Sense” in early 1776 which became a literary explosion across America at that time and lit a fire under this previously unthinkable idea. The movement for independence was now in full swing.

In answer to actions that Britain took in 1775, the colonists decided to elect delegates to attend a Continental Congress that eventually became the governing body of the union during the Revolution. In fear for their lives and to protect the cause of American liberty, the delegates to Congress adopted strict rules of secrecy. Less than a year after their formation, the delegates abandoned hope of reconciliation with Britain.  On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution “that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states.” They appointed a Committee of Five to write an announcement explaining the reasons for independence. Thomas Jefferson, who chaired the committee, wrote the first draft.


The Committee of Five

The committee consisted of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. In 1823 Jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee “unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams requesting their corrections. . . I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the Congress.

Jefferson’s account reflects three stages in the life of the Declaration: the document originally written by Jefferson; the changes to that document made by Franklin and Adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the Committee of Five to the Congress; and the version that was eventually adopted.

By Jefferson’s own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. As he explained in 1825: “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.” Jefferson’s most immediate sources were two documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. They were, in turn, directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II (recall the Glorious Revolution of 1688). During the American Revolution, Jefferson and other Americans looked to the English Declaration of Rights as a model of how to end the reign of an unjust king.


The Path of the Declaration of Independence

On July 1, 1776, Congress reconvened. The following day, the Lee Resolution for independence was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York not voting. Immediately afterward, the Congress began to consider the Declaration. Adams and Franklin had made only a few changes before the Committee of Five submitted the document. The discussion in Congress resulted in some alterations and deletions, but the basic document remained Jefferson’s.  On July 1, the Declaration had been officially adopted.

On July 2, 1776, Congress voted to declare independence. On July 2, Congress declared Independence.

The process of revision continued through all of July 3 and into the late morning of July 4.  On July 4, Congress ratified the text of the Declaration.

John Dunlap, official printer to Congress, worked through the night to set the Declaration in type and printed approximately 200 copies. These copies, known as the Dunlap Broadsides, were sent to various committees, assemblies, and commanders of the Continental troops. The Dunlap Broadsides weren’t signed, but John Hancock’s name appears in large type at the bottom. One copy crossed the Atlantic, reaching King George III months later. The official British response scolded the “misguided Americans” and “their extravagant and inadmissible Claim of Independency”.

On July 19, once all 13 colonies had signified their approval of the Declaration of Independence, Congress ordered that it be “fairly engrossed on parchment.” (To “engross” is to write in a large, clear hand.) Timothy Matlack, an assistant to the Secretary of the Congress, was most likely the penman.  On July 19, all 13 colonies approved the Declaration of Independence.

On August 2, the journal of the Continental Congress records that “The declaration of independence being engrossed and compared at the table was signed.” John Hancock, President of the Congress, signed first. The delegates then signed by state from north to south. Some signed after August 2. A few refused. George Washington was away with his troops. Ultimately, 56 delegates signed the Declaration.

The Declaration was written for the King of England, the colonists, and the world. It was intended to rally the troops, win foreign allies, and to announce the creation of a new country. The opening statement in the Declaration declared the main purpose which was to explain the right for a Revolution and “to declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” As the members of Congress in 1776 had been elected to their positions, they needed to prove their legitimacy as they defied what was the most powerful nation on earth at that time. As they were also seeking allies in support of the Revolution, the Declaration was also used to motivate allies to the cause, to join the fight.

The Declaration is a beautifully written document that officially announced that the United States were no longer part of Great Britain. That these United States were establishing a new idea of government; one whose leadership did not govern by divine right, but was chosen by the people for the people themselves. This new government’s job was to protect the “Rights” of its citizens.



Allen Jayne, (2015). Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and Theology. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 48

Benson J. Lossing, (1870). Lives of the signers of the Declaration of American independence. Evans, Stoddart & Co. p. 292.

Benson J. Lossing, (1888). Our Country: A Household History for All Readers, from the Discovery of America to the Present Time, Volume 3. Appendix: Amies Publishing Company. p. 1-10.

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary EditionBelknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, P.162

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 180-182

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 200-202

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 224–225

David McCullough, (2015). 1776, Simon and Schuster

The Declaration of Independence: A History, The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

Dumas Malone, (1948). Jefferson the Virginian (Jefferson and His Time, Vol. 1 , Little, Brown and Company; 17th ptg. Edition, p. 221

Federalist No. 39, paragraph 2

Ian Christie and Benjamin Labaree, (1976). Empire or independence, 1760-1776: A British-American dialogue on the coming of the American RevolutionPhaidon Press; 1st Edition edition, p. 31

John Adams, (1776). “Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 – May 15, 1776”. Letter to James Warren

John M. Murrin, Paul E. Johnson, James M. McPherson, Alice Fahs, Gary Gerstle, (2013). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Volume I: To 1877, Concise Edition. Cengage Learning. p. 121

Joseph Ellis, (2007). American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies in the Founding of the Republic, Knopf Publishing, pg. 55–56

Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 53-57

Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 125-128

Richard Kollen, (2004). Lexington: From Liberty’s Birthplace to Progressive Suburb. Arcadia Publishing. p. 27

Robert Middlekauff, (2007). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789,  Oxford University Press; Revised, Expanded edition, pg. 241–242

Stephen E. Lucas, (1989). Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document, Southern Illinois University Press, p. 85

Stephen E. Lucas, (2012). The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson, (1825). TO HENRY LEE – Thomas Jefferson The Works, vol. 12 (Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019 , accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019


Gun Rights and Christian Grace

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” 

In Matt 26:52-54 and John 18:11 Jesus orders Peter to put away his sword. “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Some believe that this statement was a call to Christian pacifism, while others understand it simply to mean in a general sense that “violence breeds more violence.”

While Jesus did tell Peter to put his sword in its place, He did not tell Peter to throw it away.  Peter still needed his sword to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God who was fulfilling His role on earth. Nowhere does the Bible forbid Christians from bearing arms. But wisdom and caution are of the utmost importance if one does choose to bear a lethal weapon.

We are in a political season filled with drama and suspense; its like a mystery thriller and we can’t wait to see how it ends. At the center of the presidential electoral season for the Democratic Party is the question of gun control. Bottom line is that almost all of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for President, insinuate that they intend to implement extremely strict gun restrictions in the name of gun control, including mandatory gun confiscation.

During the Democratic Debates on the evening of 13 Sep 2019, most of the candidates stated their intent to institute a gun buyback program for certain caliber weapons, which to be real, would be a mandatory gun confiscation initiative. I am not sure that there is a more significant hot button single issue item with many conservatives than their 2nd Amendment Rights. In their view, a mandatory gun buy back and confiscation program is not logical as they did not buy their weapons from the government and would be a violation of their Second Amendment rights – at least that is how they would view it, how they argue it, and how they would fight it.

Beto O’Rourke is probably the most vocal and most critical of guns when he says “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”  To many gun owners, this statement is received as a threat and an infringement of their “unalienable rights”.  One legislator from Texas responded to Beto by stating “My AR is ready for you” – presumed to be a death threat by some and a great example [to gun control advocates] of why these weapons need to be confiscated. For this article, I will leave the debate about definitions of AR and “weapons of war” to you as this is not at the heart of what this article is about. I will also not discuss the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.

What I will do is share what I have gleaned from Scripture about the right to bear arms and what it means for those of the Christian faith. I will also share arguments and points about the Second Amendment itself and the two Weapons Acts (1934 and 1994) that added restrictions to the types of weapons a citizen can own.

So, what does the democratic debate about gun control and gun confiscation mean as it relates to the Second Amendment? If a law is eventually passed mandating that we turn in all, or some, of our weapons, do you as a Christian adhere to this law? For the record, I am a gun owner of a few hunting rifles and handguns, including an AR-15. While I am one that approves of some added gun control measures (not the Red Flag Law), my emotions do rise at the thought of mandatory gun confiscation. Nonetheless, as a follower of the Bible and what it has to say, I must adhere to what the Lord tells me in His scripture.

Secondly, there are many Christians who hate Trump (see my articles  Why Do Some Christians Hate Trump  and Trump Is Not My Savior) but they are also gun toting NRA Card carrying members of our society. If these Christians honor their commitment to do whatever it takes to get President Trump out of office, are they willing to sacrifice everything they recognize today as law abiding gun ownership rights by voting in the eventual democratic candidate who wants to repeal the Second Amendment? 

I once worked for a boss, a very dedicated Christian who absolutely, without a doubt, hated Donald Trump. Trump just managed to push his buttons and you could see his heart race even by the very mention of his name. He swore that there would be no way that he would ever vote for Trump and celebrated the attempts to oust President Trump from office. As someone (meaning me) that reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016, he would roll his eyes in disappointment when we would discuss this topic. On a similar token, he was also a card carrying, gun toting, member of the NRA. This man loved his guns. While he possessed a lot of guns, he did not have an AR to the best of my knowledge but he did own small arms and small caliber rifles. I wonder if he is willing to sacrifice all of his guns if this will get President Trump out of office? What means more to him? 

So, a fair question for arm bearing Christians; if a Democrat takes office and a law is passed that we must turn in all or some of our weapons – do you and will you?  We will address this question after we dig into the Second Amendment for a bit as well as a biblical understanding of the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. It was described as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

The wording of the amendment is admittedly strangely phrased and its meaning is somewhat murky. Legal analysis, political scientists, and historians have long debated whether the first two clauses of the second amendment, “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” modified or limits the straightforward declaration of the last two phrases, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” If the first two phrases do modify and limit the second two, then perhaps we only have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms consequent to militia service. But if the first two clauses of the 2nd amendment do not express limits, then the right to keep and bear arms is much more solid.

Nonetheless, the debate appears to have been partially answered in 2008 when the Supreme Court decided 5 to 4, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that “the second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home.” Based on this decision, we do have a right to bear arms irrespective of militia service.

According to conservative leader and Wall Builders founder David Barton, the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Second Amendment was to guarantee citizens “the biblical right of self-defense.” Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794), a signer of the Declaration of Independence who helped frame the Second Amendment in the First Congress, wrote, “... to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…

Just as the Founding Fathers recognized, Barton believes that “the ultimate goal of the Second Amendment is to make sure you can defend yourself against any kind of illegal force that comes against you, whether that is from a neighbor, whether that is from an outsider or whether that is [from your own government].”  Dave Barton bases his opinion on some of the original writings from the Founding Fathers, too detailed for us to get into for this blog unfortunately. However, it is striking to note that part of our right to bear arms appears to also be intended to protect us from our own government.

However, the Second Amendment DOES NOT indicate what types, nor how many, weapons a person can own. This is why the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 was enacted.

Current Laws and Impacts

A blog from the Huffington Post in 2013 posits the following:

“The Revolutionary Era militia has been superseded by an Army and Navy, which spawned the Air Force (formerly Army Air Corps), and Marine Corps, now augmented by state and local police – which have their own colonial and pre-colonial predecessors, National Guard and Coast Guard. And in each case those women and men have their firearms supplied by the governments (local, state, federal) that employ them. The necessity met by a “well regulated militia” in the Revolutionary Era and its aftermath is now met without militias. The originating context of the Second Amendment no longer exists.”

The Huffington Post blogger may be partially accurate but the Supreme Court decision from 2008 seems to have already closed the debate about the militia argument. However, what may be a larger legitimate issue emerging in our current times is the lack of definition in the second amendment about the kind of “arms” that people, collectively, have a right to.  At the time the constitution was written, the weapons of choice were muskets and possibly cannons.  Since general citizens no longer serve as part of a recognized militia or army charged with protecting the nation, we have no enshrined right to military grade weapons.  This almost appears to be rational until you consider historical context.

  1. The bible talks about swords, spears and slingshots – not muskets; but this does not make it less relevant about your God supported rights.
  2. In the late 1700’s, the weapons of choice were muskets – not high capacity or semi-automatic weapons; but this does not make the 2nd Amendment less relevant as a right to bear arms.
  3. In the present time, military and law enforcement professionals carry or have access to semi or fully automatic weapons – but the general population does not. 

When we view each era and the weapons available, the weapons of choice for the general public were commensurate with the type of weapons that were a threat to the general public.  In ancient times, citizens carried swords and spears which were also carried by those considered to be a threat to them. In the 1700’s, citizens carried muskets because this was the weapon of choice carried by those that posed a threat to them. In the present, American citizens have access to AR’s, rifles and handguns which are similarly carried by those that pose the largest threat to the general public.  Citizens do NOT have access to weapons of war as is dramatically and incorrectly articulated by many from the Democratic Party.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) was enacted on June 26, 1934. It imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. This act bans machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices (grenades, bombs, missiles, poison gas weapons, etc). This act is still in force and active today.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as “large capacity”. This act expired in 2004; however, numerous studies have been completed about the benefits, or lack thereof, that the act provided while it was in force:

  1. A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 “led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable… the additional homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006.”. Is this a sign of issues within the United States or a sign of issues within Mexico?
  2. A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban. A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that “There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives”.
  3. A 2017 review found that the ban did not have a significant effect on firearm homicides.

The evidence shows that bans and laws that restrict access to weapons DO NOT have an impact on crime within the borders of the United States. Nonetheless, in light of recent mass shootings, the right of American people to keep and bear arms has once again come under heavy fire and heated debate. However, ironically, homicides and crimes committed with the types of weapons targeted by the Democratic Party are significantly smaller than homicides and crime committed with handguns and weapons not necessarily targeted by the left. Why? Because the AR-15 is simply more dramatic and gives an appearance of violence that seems greater than a simple revolver or Glock handgun.

Christians that oppose gun rights argue that “Christians should be shrewd enough to view a line between constitutionally protected rights and the principles of Christian freedom. Yes, there is absolutely nothing inherently immoral about bearing firearms. Yes, there is nothing illegal about owning registered weapons. But when considering Christian freedom, grace moves us from what we could do in personal interest to what we likely should do for the sake of the greater good.” However, this argument potentially falls flat when we consider that there is a difference between martyrdom (being killed by a bad guy with a gun when you refuse to carry) and having a plan. Is a Christian, killed by a bad guy, a martyr in the cause of Jesus by refusing to carry a gun?
I say, follow your heart. If you don’t want a gun, then don’t own one. This is a right that you hold as both a Christian and an American citizen. However, I do not believe that a Christian can judge another Christian that chooses to own a weapon. 

What Does The Bible Say?

So, what does the Bible have to say about a right to “bear arms”?  While the Bible obviously does not specifically address the issue of gun control, since firearms did not exist in ancient times, it does make numerous accounts of warfare and the use of weaponry, such as swords, spears, bows, and arrows, darts and slings. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. The people defended themselves.

In 1 Samuel 25:13, David said to his men, “Each of you gird on his sword.” So each man girded on his sword. And David also girded on his sword, and about four hundred men went up behind David while two hundred stayed with the baggage. (NASB)

In Psalm 144:1, David wrote: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle…

In the New Testament, in Luke 22:36-38, Jesus commanded his disciples to purchase a sword and encouraged his disciples to have swords: 

And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

And we can’t forget that in the Garden, Jesus instructed Peter to put his sword away, not throw it away. Based on these Biblical references, it does seem to indicate that Scripture supports the right to bear arms.

However, Scripture also tells us that we must honor our government and the laws of the land.

Romans 13:1-2, 4 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished…….The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. 

As Christians, we were saved by grace and the Lord has given us grace as well.

Ephesians 4:7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.

James 4:6 But He gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”


God has given us plenty of wonderful freedoms, including, in our country, the right to bear arms. While the ownership or use of firearms is not commanded by Scriptures, the defense of others certainly is, and at times this will mean the use of force.  A means of defense of others, and of course self, is the proper use of firearms. I am not arguing that “Every Christian should own a gun”, but I am articulating an argument that the Bible gives us a right to bear arms as does the Second Amendment and applicable firearms acts. But, just because you have a right to something does not mean that you need to exercise that right. If you do not want to own a gun, then by all means, follow your heart.

However, what should be at the center of the Christian debate is when it comes to Christian freedom and constitutionally-protected rights, what takes priority in your life? If a law legally passes to turn in our guns, do we follow that law or do we violate the law and face possible law enforcement action?  The bible advises us to honor our laws and the authorities in office. If we do not follow the law, then we might be placing our personal emotions and feelings above the grace and love exemplified in the Bible.

Many people (notably NRA members) have turned their guns into an extension of God, sources of security (supposedly) in any storm. I pray that our second amendment rights are maintained but we should not place guns into a position in our lives that it becomes idolatry.

God’s grace is available to us at all times, for every problem and need we face. God’s grace frees us from slavery to sin, guilt, and shame. God’s grace allows us to pursue good works. God’s grace enables us to be all that God intends us to be. God’s grace is amazing indeed.

2 Corinthians 9:8  And God is able to make all grace abound to you so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. (ESV)

Let grace and righteousness be your guiding force.


References:, accessed 13 Sep 2019, accessed 13 Sep 2019, accessed 13 Sep 2019, accessed 13 Sep 2019,accessed 13 Sep 2019, accessed 13 Sep 2019, accessed 13 Sep 2019, accessed 15 Sep 2019

Cal Jilson (2013). American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change, Harcourt Brace College Publishers

Lee, LK; Fleegler, EW; Farrell, C; Avakame, E; Srinivasan, S; Hemenway, D; Monuteaux, MC (January 1, 2017). “Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review”. JAMA Internal Medicine. 177 (1): 106–119

Mark Gius, (2014). “An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates”. Applied Economics Letters. 21(4): 265–267.

Lois Beckett, (September 24, 2014). “Fact-Checking Feinstein on the Assault Weapons Ban”. ProPublica. Retrieved 13 Sep 2019

Christopher Koper, (2013). Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis(PDF). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Arindrajit Dube, Oeindrila Dube, Omar García-Ponce, (July 10, 2013). “Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico”. American Political Science Review. 107 (3): 397–417.


Declaration of Independence – Chapter 1

King George III, labeled a tyrant for both his handling of the American colonies and his violent rebuttal of Independence, was twenty-two when he succeeded to the throne in 1760. He was a simple man with simple tastes, defying tradition by refusing to wear a  wig. He was described as remarkably tall and handsome with a cheerful expression and deep blue eyes. Records are unclear as to what transpired over the next 15 years, but by 1775, he was considered a man of strange behavior – mad King George – for which he is remembered today.
The King had never been a soldier nor did he ever travel to the American colonies (nor Scotland or Ireland for that matter). But, in 1775, he knew with complete certainty what needed to be done. America must be made to obey. He wrote to his Prime Minister, Lord North, that “I am certain any other conduct but compelling obedience would be ruinous”.
War came to America on April 19th, 1775, with the battles of Lexington and Concord – near Boston. But it was the savage brutality at Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill in 17 June that catches most attention today. It was the battle of Bunker Hill that, by most accounts, hardened the resolve of King George. “We must persist”, he said. Bunker Hill was considered a victory by the British but they had still lost more than 1000 casualties before gaining momentum.
On October 26, 1775, King George spoke before his parliament: “The present situation of America is an open revolt”, he declared, and he ” denounced as traitors those who, by gross misrepresentation, labored to inflame his people in America.” He had officially declared that America was in rebellion. Yet, while colonists had been engaged in violent conflict, the American Congress had yet to take any real political action. This would happen over the course of the next 9 months.
As we continue our journey through the Declaration of Independence, let’s open with some questions for you to test your own knowledge on what you know, and what you don’t know, about our Declaration of Independence.
  1. How many people signed the Declaration of Independence?
  2. When was the Declaration ratified by Congress and when was it signed?
  3. How many grievances are listed in the Declaration?
  4. What were the issues [grievances] that led up to the point where Congress decided it was time to declare Independence?
  5. How many of the signers were born outside of the 13 colonies?
  6. Who was the youngest person to sign the Declaration?
  7. Who was the oldest person to sign the Declaration?
  8. Who was the last person that signed the Declaration?
  9. How many of the signers were ministers?
  10. What are the biblical roots of the Declaration of Independence?
  11. Was the country already at war with Britain at the time the Declaration was signed?
  12. Who was the Declaration designed for?
  13. How many members were assigned to write the Declaration? Who were they?
  14. What defines an American? The Declaration or the US Constitution?
  15. How many signers did not have formal college education?
  16. Who embossed the Declaration of Independence? (who actually penned the document you can find in the archives).
  17. Do we have unalienable or inalienable Rights?
  18. Did everyone who voted for the Declaration actually sign the document? Did everyone who signed the document vote for it?
  19. Was declaring Independence unanimous or were there also dissenters?
On 2 July 1776, the British would land on Staten Island New York, exponentially escalating the war. That same day the American Congress would vote to “dissolve the connection” with England.  This news would reach New York 4 days later, leading to numerous spontaneous celebrations.  Nonetheless, many at that time, recognized that the war had now entered a new stage; the lines had been drawn as never before. The eyes of all were now on this newly declared nation. It was now in the hands of the colonists to play their part in posterity, which they recognized would end either as a blessing or as a curse. All of this because of a document that only takes 10 minutes to read.
As we progress in this series over the next few months, we will work to answer all of these questions and more. We will also break the Declaration down into five digestible components as recommended by experts to help us fully understand what is in the document.
In the next Chapter, we will provide background of the Declaration that many may not be aware. What led up to it and what did it take to make it a reality?



Allen Jayne, (2015). Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and Theology. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 48

Benson J. Lossing, (1870). Lives of the signers of the Declaration of American independence. Evans, Stoddart & Co. p. 292.

Benson J. Lossing, (1888). Our Country: A Household History for All Readers, from the Discovery of America to the Present Time, Volume 3. Appendix: Amies Publishing Company. p. 1-10.

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary EditionBelknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, P.162

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 180-182

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 200-202

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 224–225

David McCullough, (2015). 1776, Simon and Schuster

The Declaration of Independence: A History, The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

Dumas Malone, (1948). Jefferson the Virginian (Jefferson and His Time, Vol. 1 , Little, Brown and Company; 17th ptg. Edition, p. 221

Federalist No. 39, paragraph 2

Ian Christie and Benjamin Labaree, (1976). Empire or independence, 1760-1776: A British-American dialogue on the coming of the American RevolutionPhaidon Press; 1st Edition edition, p. 31

John Adams, (1776). “Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 – May 15, 1776”. Letter to James Warren

John M. Murrin, Paul E. Johnson, James M. McPherson, Alice Fahs, Gary Gerstle, (2013). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Volume I: To 1877, Concise Edition. Cengage Learning. p. 121

Joseph Ellis, (2007). American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies in the Founding of the Republic, Knopf Publishing, pg. 55–56

Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 53-57

Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 125-128

Richard Kollen, (2004). Lexington: From Liberty’s Birthplace to Progressive Suburb. Arcadia Publishing. p. 27

Robert Middlekauff, (2007). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789,  Oxford University Press; Revised, Expanded edition, pg. 241–242

Stephen E. Lucas, (1989). Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document, Southern Illinois University Press, p. 85 

Stephen E. Lucas, (2012). The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence 

Thomas Jefferson, (1825). TO HENRY LEE – Thomas Jefferson The Works, vol. 12 (Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019 , accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019


Declaration of Independence – Intro

It is the mission of FHGH Ministries to facilitate the intersection of faith, church, and culture by helping to steward a movement for people across the nation to be encouraged and empowered to be involved and live their purpose in Faith, Honor, Glory and Hope. In support of that mission, we are kicking off a new series on the topic of the Declaration of Independence. It will likely take a few months to get through it. 


How does the Declaration of Independence fit a topic for ministry? Why is this a subject worth covering?


As a Christian, the bible is our foundation, we live it, we live by it, and we swear by it. It tells us how to guarantee a position as a citizen of heaven, it sets our belief systems – it tells us why we exist. The bible also tells us what our responsibilities are, it serves as our guide as stewards, and helps to define our relationships with both people and the earth.

1 Peter 4:10. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace.

Genesis 1:28. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

The fundamental principle of biblical stewardship is that God owns everything, we are simply managers or administrators acting on His behalf. Biblical stewardship expresses our obedience regarding the administration of everything God has placed under our control, which is all encompassing. Included in this is our responsibility to be good stewards of the nation in which we currently “dwell”. We are citizens of heaven serving as ambassadors while living [dwelling] in the nation – our residence on earth.

Psalm 24:1  The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, The world, and those who “dwell” in it.

Many of us are familiar with the admonition in 2 Corinthians 5:20 to be “ambassadors for Christ.” This does not mean that we are to become distracted from what the Bible has to say about our nation and what our attitude towards our national heritage should be.  The Scriptures also encourage us to study the past: “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning” (Romans 15:4). When Paul wrote this, he was encouraging the reader to continue to study the Old Testament for instruction. While not necessarily applicable to new covenant discipleship, everything in the Old Testament does point to Jesus.  But, what about the nation or country that we occupy on earth? I believe that, as Christians, we must study and be aware of our national past so that we understand what makes it worth protecting, saving, and sharing.

Bill Peel from The Theology of Work Project said it best when he wrote, “Although God gives us “all things richly to enjoy,” nothing is ours. Nothing really belongs to us. God owns everything; we’re responsible for how we treat it and what we do with it. While we complain about our rights here on earth, the Bible constantly asks, What about your responsibilities? Owners have rights; stewards have responsibilities.” In combination with biblical principals as well as the written works of theological thought leaders, we, as Christians, are responsible to be good stewards of our country. The United States is unique, never has a nation like ours existed in recorded history – and this is good news. The United States was founded almost 250 years ago with the premise of our nation outlined and discussed across four separate documents: 1) the Declaration of Independence, 2) The US Constitution, 3) the Bill of Rights, and 4) the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

At the forefront is the Declaration of Independence. While most attention is typically given to the US Constitution, we would not have a Constitution if not for the Declaration. The Declaration of Independence is the foundational document for our US Constitution, it is our true Birth Certificate. If we as Christians are to be biblically minded and stewards of the land in which we “dwell”, it might be a good idea to understand the document that serves as the foundation for our earthly nation – just as we do with the bible which is the cornerstone and foundational document for our faith and belief system.

Many people will read the Declaration of Independence as a general interest item, but how many have actually taken time to actually understand it? How did it come about? What does it mean?  Why? The Declaration of Independence is so imbued with a biblical worldview that it would be controversial to read it aloud in many public schools, as well as other venues, because of the current secular movement toward removing Christianity from the public square – there are strong efforts ongoing to remove anything that relates to Christian/Judeo values from our American heritage. The fingerprint of God was firmly placed on our nation during its founding. As Christians, and as stewards of our nation, we should do our part to preserve what I believe the Lord ordained.

FHGH Ministries is committed to not only discussing and sharing items of cultural relevance for Christians, but also sharing the truth of our American history, our heritage, with other Christians. Therefore, we will be kicking off a new series on the Declaration of Independence.  We will discuss and share some interesting items of trivia about the document, how the document came about (background), the biblical roots of the Declaration, how to read the document, the 27 grievances outlined in the document, and a bio of each person who signed the Declaration.

We pray that, as each iteration of the series is shared with you, that you find it not only interesting, but also enlightening. We were not experts about the Declaration of Independence before we took on this project nor will we claim to be experts about it once the project is completed. However, the research completed thus far was eye opening. This is our prayer for you. Perhaps, maybe, hopefully, you will come to a new understanding of how our nation was founded and why it is paramount that we do our part to protect it.



Allen Jayne, (2015). Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and Theology. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 48

Benson J. Lossing, (1870). Lives of the signers of the Declaration of American independence. Evans, Stoddart & Co. p. 292.

Benson J. Lossing, (1888). Our Country: A Household History for All Readers, from the Discovery of America to the Present Time, Volume 3. Appendix: Amies Publishing Company. p. 1-10.

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, P.162

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 180-182

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 200-202

Bernard Bailyn, (2017). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press; Anniversary edition, Pg. 224–225.

The Declaration of Independence: A History, The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

Dumas Malone, (1948). Jefferson the Virginian (Jefferson and His Time, Vol. 1 , Little, Brown and Company; 17th ptg. Edition, p. 221

Federalist No. 39, paragraph 2

Ian Christie and Benjamin Labaree, (1976). Empire or independence, 1760-1776: A British-American dialogue on the coming of the American Revolution, Phaidon Press; 1st Edition edition, p. 31

John Adams, (1776). “Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 – May 15, 1776”. Letter to James Warren

John M. Murrin, Paul E. Johnson, James M. McPherson, Alice Fahs, Gary Gerstle, (2013). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Volume I: To 1877, Concise Edition. Cengage Learning. p. 121

Joseph Ellis, (2007). American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies in the Founding of the Republic, Knopf Publishing, pg. 55–56

Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 53-57

Pauline Maier, (1998). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books Ed edition, pg. 125-128

Richard Kollen, (2004). Lexington: From Liberty’s Birthplace to Progressive Suburb. Arcadia Publishing. p. 27

Robert Middlekauff, (2007). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789,  Oxford University Press; Revised, Expanded edition, pg. 241–242

Stephen E. Lucas, (1989). Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document, Southern Illinois University Press, p. 85
Stephen E. Lucas, (2012). The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson, (1825). TO HENRY LEE – Thomas Jefferson The Works, vol. 12 (Correspondence and Papers 1816–1826, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 9 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019 , accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019, accessed 10 Sep 2019



Former Transgender Warning – A Podcast

Sometimes, we come across cultural issues that are very tough to listen to, much less have a discussion about it. One cultural item that can be very uncomfortable, emotional, or challenging to discuss is that of the Transgender lifestyle. Even if topics like this are uncomfortable, as Christians we should be willing to be aware, be open to talking about it, and not shy away.

In early August 2019, I spent a few days at the Texas State Capital participating in an event known as The Patriot Academy. While there, I met and had the opportunity to have a few short discussions with a man named Kevin Whitt. Wow, what a testimony from a man that has been redeemed from the LGBTQ lifestyle, something that he began while a teenager. God has definitely placed His hand on the heart of Kevin and healed him from a lifestyle that in his words “is dangerous”.

The Lord has truly blessed Kevin and he has a very bright future as he is beginning a ministry for those that are challenged by, and in recovery from, the LGBTQ lifestyle. Kevin is also connected with several state legislators around the country as he shares his thoughts about impacts on children that adults are leading to altering their sexual identity.

Kevin recently participated in an interview during a radio show with Wallbuilders (Tim Barton and Rick Green). A link to the podcast version of the radio show is below for those that may interested in hearing about this cultural issue from the perspective of someone that lived that lifestyle for over 20 years. God bless.



Social Media – Test All Things

In Acts 17:11, we read where Paul’s teachings were tested by the Berean Jews. This was not only acceptable, it expanded their faith.  Can we not apply this same expectation today to things we read that are not of the bible but of the world?

As the ministry venue for FHGH Ministries is currently a digitally based ministry, I do spend a bit of time reviewing others areas of the digital space. I have it on my heart, at some point, to write an article about “Christian Concerns About Big Tech”, but the Lord has yet to provide me with the right words – as well as solid biblical foundational support. My professional experience is based on technology so I do have some foundation on technology. Nevertheless, I look forward to when the Lord tells me the time is now.

However, this morning (4 Sep) I came across an article that was quickly spreading across Social Media that indicated “Oprah Winfrey had purchased a controlling stake in the Fox News Network”. A link to this article can be found below in the references section if you care to read for yourself. As one might imagine, this article caught the eye of many conservative readers and the result was foul. Conservatives felt that they had just witnessed the demise of the last venue of conservative free speech in America, and they were terrified. Violent actions had actually been contemplated by some. The writer of that article had accomplished his objective. Well played sir, well done! For my conservative friends out there, be comforted in the knowledge that this article is false!!!

1 Thess 5:21 “Test all things; hold fast what is good”

As tensions rise across our nation, rhetoric also increases exponentially. Unfortunately, the reaction is to spread “stuff” across social media platforms. Over 41% of Americans get their news from Social Media, this percentage increases as we consider younger generations. Unfortunately, a large percentage of what is placed out there across social media is false, or at best, intended to stir up a response placed on negative human emotions. Making this more difficult is that the bad guys know where the majority get their news but also that innocent citizens are also aware of the fakeness of social media news (this IS NOT intended to be commentary about regular media) but they react to it anyway.  This is due, in most part, to a digital and literacy deficiency. Oh, I wish I had space to share details about how our Founding Fathers wrote at an intelligence level that surpasses us today and how the Bible played a significant part in their vocabulary, knowledge, and writing style. But alas, that is for another day {I hope}. Acts 5:29 “….obey God rather than men”

The bottom line is that human nature is lazy and we tend to take the easy road at every opportunity. We focus on headlines rather than the body. We rely on human reasoning, the word of others, or tradition.

Acts 17:11 “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

When I came across that Oprah Winfrey article, there was a check in my spirit that something was wrong, so I tested the information found in that article. I googled it, I reviewed my trusted news sites, and a meditated on what the article was implying. In less than 5 minutes, I knew that the article was fake and false. Yet, the writer had accomplished his mission. What took 2 hours to spread will now take weeks to clean up.

2 Tim 4:3-4 “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

The Bible advises us to test scriptures, to test any word from God that we receive, and to vet what we hear and read with two or three spiritual brothers. When it comes to the junk that we see on Social Media, we should apply the same principal. Test it. Test it against two or three sources that you trust. If necessary, share it with a brother and sister to get their thoughts on it. Do not share or spread until you have checked and verified, the same that you would do with a word from God. The same should apply to something that you might consider “good” or “favorable” to you.

1 John 4:1 “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

As Christians, I would argue that we need to test everything that we see come across our preferred social media platforms. As responsible Christians, we should be stewards of the truth, this also includes being good stewards of our digital resources and not add to the hype that is only intended to seduce a negative human reaction. This spreads hate.  I look forward to the day that Christians are contributing to not only good news, but also the truth. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shall see a decline in the fakeness that is taking over social media.


Oprah Winfrey and the Fox News Network


Why Do Some Christians Hate Trump?

On 27 August, I shared a blog about how Trump is not my savior. A link to that write up is here: Trump Is Not My Savior.  In that article, I was transparent about my dislike of some of Trump’s behavior via Twitter as well as my lack of support for him when he was campaigning for the nomination from the Republican Party. As a matter of personal discourse, I stopped considering myself a Republican the day that he was nominated.  However, his nomination and eventual election as President has not stopped my belief that the far left wings of the Democratic Party are more dangerous to America, as well as our freedom to preach the Gospel, than President Trump by far. They have an outright hatred for Judeo Christian values, that had been somewhat obvious yet still hidden in the shadows in the past, that have now come to the surface in a manner that is blatant, chaotic, and extremely dangerous: for both our American heritage AND our religious liberties.  Trump is my President.

Unfortunately, there are Christians out there whose hatred runs deep, they are so blinded by what they consider to be unbiblical and ungodly actions of President Trump, that they cannot see the forces that are actually opposing what they know, in their hearts, to be true. They hate Trump with such a passion, that they would agree to sacrifice some of our religious liberty (as ordained by God), just to see President Trump taken down, tossed in prison, and legacy destroyed.  Christians that hate Trump will elect a democratic candidate even if the candidate supports late term or at birth abortions, even if the candidate will enact laws that will not allow the Gospel to be preached “openly”, even if the candidate will place a tax of over 50% on their income – their hatred runs that deep. How to share a story about Christians who hate President Trump has been something I have been personally struggling with.  How can I share this truth in a way that does not become blinded by my own personal opinions and political bias?
Scripture promises that “blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. Blessed are those who keep his statutes” (Psalm 119:2). God blesses those that keep His word and judges those who do not.

How does “hating the President” line up with the gospel?  How does NOT praying for the President line up with Scripture? A Christian should never induce another Christian to sin.

The prophet Daniel served Nebuchadnezzar.  Daniel recognized the role that this pagan king played in God’s unfolding drama.  Daniel prayed for Nebuchadnezzar and helped him interpret his dreams. The church’s ability to work with Trump is totally Biblical.
We may believe that the Bible is divinely inspired but if we do not put its truths into practice, our beliefs ring hollow. Because the Bible is God’s Word we must be ready spiritually to hear what it says to us. The Bible is meant for every believer and if we want to help our culture understand why Scripture is worthy of respect, we must show that we respect it first. 
Bible study is built on certain presuppositions:
  1. Believe that you can understand Scripture. God has given us His revelation in such a way that we can discover and apply its truths. We need not depend on creeds, councils, and church traditions. 
  2. Use the New Testament to interpret the Old. The New, which reveals Christ, is our means of interpreting the Old. God reveals Himself progressively, building later revelation upon earlier truth. The New Testament is God’s fullest revelation of himself to us and our means of interpreting His earlier revelation.
  3. Make the Bible it’s own commentary. Scriptures can interpret themselves because Gods word is unified, coherent, and fully inspired.
  4. Remember to ask the question, “What was the author’s purpose?”. We need to know all we can about the authors intended purpose before we try to interpret the writing. If we don’t understand the purpose or task at hand, we will miss much of what the writer wants us to know and do.
When Christians accuse other Christians of disrespecting God’s Word because they disagree on the non-essentials, however important they might otherwise be, we jeopardize our witness to the non-Christians world. The end state of any Christian “opinion” should be firmly placed on a belief system grounded in the gospel – period. Therefore, if we remain grounded in the gospel, how does President Trump stack up against the current team of democratic candidates? My “opinion” which I believe is firmly grounded in biblical principles is that while Trump himself may not be behaving biblically, his heart, his motives, and his policies have made tremendous positive steps towards rebuilding and sustaining biblical principles.  Unfortunately, I recognize that there are Christians that will find my opinion flawed – I simply have to accept that. My heart is at peace.

Tom Farron is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom. He wrote and published an article on 5 June 2019 titled Why do US evangelicals support Trump? They’re giving Christianity a bad name“. In his article, he is highly critical of Christians who compare President Trump to the pagan king Cyrus from the Old Testament. But, it was his concluding paragraph in his article that weighed heavily on me:

“The choice of American Christians to publicly back Trump now, and George W Bush before him, has been a dangerous move in a culture war that now means that half of the US has its fingers in its ears when it comes to the gospel. My challenge to Christians in the US is this: what matters more to you, the identity of the person in the White House or the promotion of the good news about Jesus Christ? If it is the latter – and it surely must be – then you need to seriously reconsider your support of the former. The politicisation of US Christianity has undermined the witness of evangelicals everywhere.”

As I prayed on and meditated on this paragraph, I asked the Lord what it was about this article that was causing me distress. I believe very deeply that the Democratic Party is on a collision course with both our biblical freedom as well as the rights and freedoms afforded us in our US Constitution. What the Democratic Party is saying regarding their policies IS NOT grounded in biblical principles (see my blog on Trump mentioned earlier). However, I also find the tongue of President Trump to be unbiblical and ungodly as well.
Ask yourself: how does it look for petty, quarreling believers to air dirty laundry in front of unbelievers?  In this regard, I am referring to biblical interpretation and the judgement and exercise thereof. We really should keep our focus on Christ as He is our great equalizer. We are all under His authority.
We have Christians that hate Trump so deeply that they are willing to give up their own individual liberty to get him out of office. However, when we read 1 Cor 8, we see where Paul is telling the Corinthians that strong Christians should not give up their liberty, they are to use their liberties in a manner that will best serve Christ. While some Christians are free to choose to give up their own liberty, they do not have the authority to sacrifice the liberties of all Christians. Their hatred is a sign of weakness and, thereby, not under the authority of Christ.

Today, I was introduced to a story written by Mario Murillo titled “Christians Who Hate Trump“.  I don’t profess to know much about Mario, but I felt the last half of his write up, which I share below, to ring true in my own heart. You can click on the link to read the full article if you wish.

“Franklin Graham was attacked for questioning Obama’s Christian Faith.  They told him not to judge a brother.  Hold that thought as we explore another question…

So why do so many Christian leaders—who said it was wrong to judge Obama—judge Trump?

Trump is not a pastor.  He is a businessman who loves America.  As far as his faith?  I am not qualified to determine his spiritual depth, since I’ve never had the chance to meet the man. But there are many photos of Christian leaders laying hands on the President, praying for him, and he is cooperating.

“He is like Hitler and the church is being fooled,” said another comment.  At this time, those of you who are wearing tinfoil hats, please remove them, and listen.  Hitler never had 98% of the media against him.  Trump has never called for a new constitution.  Hitler never tried to protect Israel.  I could go on and on.

Maybe if Trump had addressed the March for Life.  Maybe if he had chosen an on fire born-again Vice President.  Maybe if he had rescinded executive orders that banned federal funds from Christian organizations.  Maybe if he overruled the Johnson Amendment that banned the free speech of pastors.  Maybe if he had moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem, and shown himself to be a true supporter of Israel.  Maybe if he had put someone on the Supreme Court who helped Christian bakers to exercise their right to freedom of religion.  Maybe then you would support him.  Oh wait…he did all those things…”

While Trumps tongue may challenge the best of us when it comes to biblical soundness, his actions indicate otherwise. Others will argue that his policies violate biblical principles or the teachings of Jesus, something that I will attempt to dig into in a later article; however, I believe that his issues come down to his “tongue”, and this gets him in trouble.

On facebook the other day, I shared an article, written by Dave Barton in 2015, that outlines an argument about how President Obama is arguably the most biblically hostile President in modern history (hence, most anti-Christian). Click on this link to see a list of 89 acts of hostility toward Christians: AMERICA’S MOST BIBLICALLY-HOSTILE U. S. PRESIDENT. The bottom of the article contains a reference list supporting all 89 acts. Being an avid researcher, I randomly reviewed 50% of the supporting arguments myself and believe I would have come to the same conclusion as Dave Barton.

My opinion and belief system remains firm that the conservative parties, while not completely, remain much more grounded in Judeo Christian principals than those of the liberal parties. My belief is based on actions, words, and individual stated beliefs; this does not mean that all conservatives are in line “biblically” nor that all liberals are not in line “biblically”. We must recognize that we are dealing with political parties developed and instituted by man, not God; therefore, all political movements and parties are flawed. Unfortunately, our nation is managed by a predominantly two party system, yet, in my opinion (and my heart), conservatives are standing on firmer ground.

Remain biblically grounded and evaluate against the end-state – the gospel. Since we live in a pluralist culture, I accept that there will be some disagreement. But, can we disagree with love in our hearts? Yes, I believe we can, and we should.

References:, accessed 2 Sep 2019, accessed 3 Sep 2019, accessed 19 Jul 2019, accessed 27 Aug 2019

Denison, J. PHD and Denison, R. MDiv, (2019). How Does God See America?, Denison Forum, pages 43-58

Limbaugh, D. (2018). Jesus is Risen, Regnery Publishing, pages 185-193