Things are truly upside-down. Christians, who have been scorned forever as weak and milk-toast, are suddenly public enemy number one. And while Christianity has been the source of thousands of American charities and the inspiration for hospitals, medical care, and education worldwide, it is now labeled by the Left as hateful and bigoted. Then we see destructive anarchist groups like Antifa and BLM glorified in the Media and academia as forces for good! How could this be?

The Left has had an advantage over conservatives in shaping the public’s perception of things for many years because they have controlled the narrative. They have presented themselves as caring and compassionate, sympathetic to the poor and the disadvantaged. And, because of the Christian ideal of giving people the benefit of the doubt, we have accepted that maybe they were truly concerned for those who are less advantaged.

However, because Leftists now have so much power, they no longer feel the need to hide their true objective. They seek political dominance and the elimination of Christianity in all public forums and will do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals. They have portrayed themselves as selfless champions of the downtrodden, and conservatives as greedy. However, we must no longer tolerate that narrative. It is a lie, and their duplicity is clear to all whose eyes are open.

Leftists have done well at creating the perception that they are not in politics for money, thus masking their greed. But make no mistake! They are as greedy as one can be. However, if you have enough power, you do not need personal wealth because you control other peoples’ money.

With the power to tax, politicians can live as if they are wealthy by legally confiscating and spending other people’s money. Creating wealth is difficult and requires certain skills and discipline. But if you are not talented in this area and are lazy and unethical, politics provides you with a vehicle to achieve your dreams without the hard work and risk that capital creation requires.

What we have seen over the last 60 years is the Left demonizing those who create wealth in order to justify confiscating it.

At the same time, the leftists, who disdain wealth creators, have convinced the public that they (the Leftists) are better and more selfless stewards of that wealth. Thus, we have people who are incapable of creating wealth, taking it from those who do and spending it according to their own desires and accruing to themselves more power in the process. It is interesting how many politicians have become multimillionaires even as they denounce those who created the wealth in the first place.

We are now governed by people who have no idea how to create or wisely manage wealth, and whose real motivation is that of controlling the rest of us. They are the embodiment of greed. They are concerned primarily for themselves and serve others only as a means of accruing power and wealth to themselves.

While one would expect that they would alienate most everyone because of their greed, they have managed to gain a substantial following among three groups who sustain them in power: those who are content to take a handout and produce nothing, those who are genuinely needy and have become dependent upon the politicians, and a third group who are equally cynical and see an opportunity to accrue some personal power and prestige by supporting the Leftists and their sordid process.

Sadly, the Media, whose primary responsibility is to hold public figures accountable, cover for their corruption. There is no way to describe it other than that of non-producers stealing and controlling what the producers have created. They are truly parasitic.

This brings us to the very important question: what does the Bible say about all this?  As “pilgrims” here are we to be compliant and silent? Compassion and generosity are certainly Christian values! But as an aside, let us put to rest the nostrum that Leftism is compassionate. It decidedly is not! After decades of the federal government spending literally trillions of dollars on numerous supposedly compassionate programs, the poor remain poor and the powerless remain powerless.

If these programs are as bad as they appear, we should turn our attention to their impact on society in general and on those who contribute. Is it moral to confiscate resources from those who create and earn it only to squander it on ineffective programs? I believe the evidence suggests that the exorbitant taxation upon the middle and upper classes in America over the last 50 years has been both immoral and counterproductive.

So, what does the Bible teach about such things? One need not be a Bible scholar to know that stealing is wrong. Therefore, without having good reason the government should not take from one citizen to give to another. Having the government’s imprimatur does not change the reality that transferring wealth from earners to non-earners without Constitutional authority is theft.  The right to personal property guaranteed in the Constitution is not simply to provide for an individual’s greed, but rather to protect his life.

Unprotected property rights place every citizen’s life at risk. If the government can take, at will, one’s wealth, it can starve that person to death. And the fact that even after trillions of dollars have been transferred, primarily from earners to non-earners, there are still many millions in poverty underscores the need to rethink our “compassionate” welfare system. As constructed, it is a colossal failure.

Foundational to the issue is the fact that government is incapable of ministering compassion. It must fall to other social institutions and organizations, such as churches, to resolve the poverty problem.

The Bible notes that “wisdom is justified of her children,” (Luke 7:35), meaning that the wisdom of an act is revealed by its consequences; and Jesus stated that “a tree is known by its fruit,” (Luke 6:44). Therefore, if a particular activity repeatedly produces bad results one can assume the act is foolish and ought to be discontinued. One’s intentions mean nothing in this.

While the Left burnishes their “compassion badges,” boasting of how much they care, virtually everything they have done for over fifty years has produced nothing but heartache, misery, poverty and increased public unrest. It cannot be ignored that as Christianity has been pushed to the fringes of society there have been tragic increases in crime, depression, suicide, divorce, sexual perversion, and confusion.

Setting aside for the moment those who cannot provide for themselves, the Bible is very clear that anyone who refuses to work should not eat. Witness the sorry tales of so many lottery winners to understand that we do not do well with unearned wealth! Therefore, government should do nothing to facilitate a comfortable life for those unwilling to work. Sources, secular and sacred, confirm that generally, those who are diligent, disciplined, and work hard do not go hungry.

Scriptures tell us that God gives rain to those who love Him and those who don’t. He is gracious! This does not mean that His provision will always be abundant. We should all be grateful to him for his care and provision for us whether it be modest or abundant. It may be that one of our biggest errors, culturally, is that we have raised a generation of Americans who believe they are owed a rich and comfortable existence even though they have done little or nothing productive. To give it to them would be immoral and destructive!

Colonial Jamestown, VA scholar, Martha McCartney, wrote in Encyclopedia Virginia, (Dec 7, 2020) that Captain John Smith, early President of the colony, would have nothing of slothfulness, declaring that

“the labours of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine a hundred and fiftie idle loyterers.”

Whatever his motives, it is quite clear that his stubbornness preserved lives. Very few died under his leadership while a large number perished under the leadership of his successor who was not so strict. As McCartney noted,

“Regardless of whether Smith recognized this fact, he found that even small amounts of work improved both the material life and health of the colonists.”

These realities are so obvious that no politician can honestly deny them. To create a public welfare system where productivity and hard work are discouraged by the government’s confiscation of wealth from producers to distribute it to those who are unwilling to work is simply immoral and will, if not corrected, contribute to the collapse of the entire economy. It is impossible for our politicians not to understand this, therefore, we need no longer accept the notion that they are well-intentioned but misguided.

No, they are simply greedy, either for money or power, or both. They are snakes in the grass who ought to be exposed for what they are. Their programs have produced virtually nothing of value and instead an abundance of suffering.

In seeking a biblical perspective, the faithful Christian should consider two primary principles: First is his responsibility to the poor. Numerous biblical texts in both Old and New Testaments give God’s answer. On one hand, Christ Himself noted that, “the poor you have with you always.” This is merely a sad acknowledgement of reality. People are poor for a variety of reasons, many of which are intractable.

This must not be construed as cause for doing nothing. Many Christians and others have seen the impossibility of eliminating poverty as cause for discouragement and apathy.

However, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan teaches us that while we may not be able to do much about poverty across the globe, we can do something about people in need who cross our paths regularly. Therefore, the Christian ought to be known for wise generosity: encouraging work for those able, and compassionate giving to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Which leads to the second principle: Just as it is wrong to ignore genuine need, it is wrong to indulge the indolent. The Scriptures teach that if a man refuses to work, he should not be given food. It is for his own betterment that others refuse to support him in his slothful choices. He will gain more than a meal when he learns the value of hard work.

America is at a fork in the road. Will we return to the imperfections, yet relative goodness of a society guided by the principles and truths of Christianity and the Bible, or adopt Marxism and fall back into the despotism and misery that has otherwise characterized human history from its beginnings?

The choice seems pretty clear to me!

The teen years are vitally important for your son or daughter’s spiritual life. Most teens experience dramatic ups and downs in their faith and relationship with God. Your student needs a spiritual connection with you more than ever before.

Whether your student is spiritually thriving or struggling, this seminar with Dr. Rob Rienow will encourage you. You will be equipped with key Scriptures and practical ways that you can build a stronger relationship with your teen so you can help them follow Jesus.

This FREE seminar is sponsored by Wheaton Academy & Visionary Family Ministries

Register here.

Written by Toby J. Sumpter

Introduction
What many pastors and Christians are twisting Romans 13 and 1 Pet. 2 to mean is laughable, I mean, literally. That’s what God does with kings and nations that use their power to plot against God and His anointed (and that includes His people and their freedom). God laughs (Ps. 2:4). So Christians should laugh too.

But it’s also sad that many pastors and Christians have become so dull in their thinking, so biblically illiterate that they have virtually no clue how radically freedom-loving the Founding Fathers were and the Bible actually is. Well, they likely know the passages and stories that are meant to shock us into the fresh air of Christian liberty, but we’ve been marinating in the hot house of bad seminaries and worse preaching for so long, we wouldn’t know Christian liberty if she dumped a bunch of tea in the Boston Harbor while singing the Star-Spangled Banner.

Stand Fast
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal. 5:1). God commands Christians to resist every form of slavery and tyranny. Why? Because Christ has set you free.

But many Christians think this freedom is almost nothing. They think it is freedom in their hearts, freedom to go to heaven when they die, freedom to have emotional orgasms on Sunday mornings during that one chord progression and all the hands go up. But that isn’t freedom. That’s like calling a kiddie sticker with a palm tree “Hawaii.” That’s like calling grape juice “wine.” Oh. Wait. Heh. Yeah…

But the Bible opens with God creating the universe, setting one tree in all of creation off limits, and firing the starting gun with enthusiasm. Go! The world belongs to men to rule, to enjoy, to glorify. Yes, sin has slowed us down and interrupted this mission, this dominion mandate, but it has never been set aside. Every man has a direct commission from God to explore the world, to invent, to discover, and in Christ we are sons of the King of the Universe. We don’t need no stinking permits. Building codes? Heh.

And somebody somewhere is hyperventilating, worried that I’m condoning shoddy work and irresponsibility, but I’m actually not. Working in this world as free men and women under the blessing of God is not irresponsible and must not be shoddy. It strives for excellence in every direction.

Neutered Bible Stories
One of the ways we have neutered Biblical freedom is by butchering Bible stories. Abraham lies his head off not once but twice to the “magistrates” in Canaan to protect his wife, and what does God do? God blesses his socks off. What do we do? We shake our heads condescendingly and make up moralistic myths about how God can even use liars like Abraham, weak in faith. Except the Bible says that Abraham was God’s friend and the father of all the faithful. The Bible says that when Abraham and Isaac and Jacob lied to tyrants and tricked their unfaithful superiors, God blessed them. Do we want that blessing?

Jacob gets the worst treatment of all, with our Bible translators playing along, twisting Scripture at the outset calling Jacob a “quiet” or “plain” man who dwelt in tents (Gen. 25:27), when the word is “perfect,” the same word used to describe Job, the righteous. But we just can’t bring ourselves to see in Jacob what God sees in Jacob, a faithful man, a man who wrestles with God and defies imperious men, hungry for blessing. There’s that blessing again. Do we want God to bless America like He blessed Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

Time would fail us to tell of Moses defying Pharaoh, of Gideon and Samson and the judges running black markets and underground operations, David’s mighty men like Robin Hood in the Cave of Adullam, Paul walking around the Roman Empire like he served the One who owns the world, and Jesus coming like He didn’t even care about Herod or the Pharisees or the High Priests.

For liberty Christ has set you free.  

If Jephthah Was American and the Church was the Tribe of Ephraim
What if you could start a government from scratch? OK, not from scratch, but almost from scratch? What if you had inherited 5,000 plus years of cautionary tales about tyrants, mobs, oligarchs, anarchy, and the slimy, sinful condition of every man’s fallen heart – and you could structure a new constitution? Well, that’s kind of what America was.

The American experiment, the US Constitution and our state constitutions, encrusted with many humanistic barnacles and much corrupt corrosion, was nevertheless established with a suspicious, steely eye staring directly at the tendency in man to corruption. They knew the truth of Lord Acton’s creed in their bones: “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So they set about to establish a Republic, not a democracy, not a monarchy, not an aristocracy – “a Republic, if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin famously quipped. But not just any Republic, a Republic particularly skeptical, cynical, and leery of political power.

We often use the phrase “checks and balances,” but I’m not sure we realize how thoroughly the Founding Fathers thought of this. While the Bureaucratic Administrative State has become a massive, oozing cucumber-shaped tumor out the side of the Federal Head, the Constitution itself is a short, iron-clad document, primarily full of limiting features. Let us call them chains and locks and cinder block walls with barbed wire and broken glass scattered generously across the top.

While there would be an executive, he would only serve four year terms and can be over-ridden by the legislature and even kicked out of office. But the legislature is broken into two houses, one leaning more towards popular vote, giving the people an almost direct say every two years, the other, the senate, representing the states, standing for election every six years, but staggered every two years to slow the turnover of its members. And a judicial branch of courts meant to check all of those, and Ten Amendments, Ten Titanium Locks meant to keep the government in its cage. But the chains and locks of this mixed government run all the way down into the states, counties, cities, and people.

And the point of it all was to flatten all political power, to spread it out and tangle it up in as many different directions as possible, with multiple gates, multiple switchbacks and hairpin turns to slow everything down because not to put too fine a point on it: men do bad things with power. And then to put an exclamation point on all of it, the Constitution forbade all honorific, hierarchical titles. No lords. No political nobility. No political royalty. No magisterial class. We’re all just men made in the magisterial image of God.

In other words, our Founding Fathers wanted to establish a nation of limited government where everyone participated, not democratically, not like a giant mob, but covenantally, feudally, federally, with multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities, overlaid loyalties, mixed and sometimes competing as a way to spread out the temptations to power, with kinks in the hose every six feet.

In other words, we the people, we the families, we the cities, we the churches, we the counties, we the businesses, we the states, we the free associations and denominations, we the representatives, we the civil servants are all magistrates in America, or else we have no magistrates. When someone is elected to be the chairman of the school board, nobody starts citing Romans 13 if he starts getting snippy at meetings. We tell him to cool it or we give him the boot. America was set up as a complex and intricate system of interweaving boards and chairmen, and maybe that will be our undoing, but America was designed to try keep everyone from getting uppity.

Romans 13 in America
Romans 13 in America means honoring our Fathers who set up that system, that vast system of checks and padlocks, our Fathers who forbade us, the people and our representatives, from allowing power to accumulate in the hands of one man, one branch of government, or one class of people. You cannot cite Romans 13 divorced from the actual form of government established by our constitution. You cannot cite Romans 13 divorced from what our Fathers commanded us to do and that was to keep our freedom.

Citing Romans 13 in its Roman Empire context and applying it straight across to the American project is like citing instructions to slaves to submit to their masters and applying it straight across to employees. Everyone understands (or should understand) that there are analogous lessons and principles in play, but they must be applied differently to a situation where chattel slavery has been abolished. And it makes absolutely no sense to tell an employee with an abusive boss that now she can apply what Peter says about abusive slave masters. Well, yes, there is application there, but it’s not like she’s trapped and has to lay down and take it.

Likewise, when Christianity has permeated a culture to such an extent that the founders of a nation do everything they can think of to pile bricks on the tendency of magistrates to abuse their power, you cannot appeal to Romans 13 and tut-tut American Christians that Paul wrote that during Nero’s reign. Right, but America is not the Roman Empire, and it is nothing resembling Christian in the slightest to passively let such an empire develop. And there is no necessary contradiction between humbly recognizing God’s just judgment in the loss of our freedom on the one hand and fighting to keep and retain and gain true Christian freedom on the other. The Midianites were God’s judgment on Israel for her idolatry, and it was still faithful to join up with Gideon.

Other nations with different civil polities have to do a slightly different calculus, applying the principles of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 to their political circumstances. But in general, Paul would urge all of us to honor legitimate authority and that if we can get freedom from tyranny we should go for it. When American Christians defy stupid mask rules, ignore inane health and safety regulations, and generally live like free men and women, especially in their own homes and businesses and places of worship, they honor the fathers who established this nation, they obey Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, and they honor the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who set us free that we might be free indeed.

Conclusion
One final word on this notion of radical freedom that must be underlined multiple times: this freedom must not be used for the flesh. This freedom is not for smoking pot, getting drunk (or very tipsy), or messing around with your girlfriend or the secretary at work. This freedom is not for looking at pornography. This freedom is not for feeding any hint of wrath or vengeance in your heart or on social media or blowing up at your family or the lady with the potty mouth in the checkout aisle who wants to know why you’re not wearing your woke burka.

This freedom is for obedience to Christ. This freedom is for taking dominion and ruling the world under God’s blessing for the good of our families and neighbors. This freedom is for proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus for the freedom and salvation of the world. This freedom is for obeying lawful and godly authority.

The freedom of Christ is full of love, joy, and peace. This freedom is full of forgiveness and mercy, even for enemies and tyrants, praying and hoping for their salvation and repentance. It is precisely because of this peace and joy and grace that it will not voluntarily relinquish its responsibilities. We must obey God rather than man. And when we do that, we must take responsibility for the fallout. We must count the cost. But there is immense blessing for those who are hungry for it.

This article was originally posted at TobyJSumpter.com

On July 23, 2020, conservative University of North Carolina professor, Townhall writer, and Christian, Mike Adams, was driven to suicide by the vile and relentless bullying of devotees of diversity and teachers of tolerance who fancy themselves “progressive.” They were aided and abetted by spineless Christians who failed to come alongside a brother in Christ because of his “sins” of violating leftist language rules.

Leftists and some Christians were especially peeved by a metaphor Adams employed to criticize oppressive pandemic commandments issued by North Carolina’s Democrat governor Roy Cooper.

On May 29th, Adams tweeted, “This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina. Massa Cooper, let my people go.”

Which of the following metaphors is more offensive: Comparing a political leader who oppresses citizens with unjust orders to a slave master or comparing those with wealth who ignore the starvation of the poor to cannibals?

Is one acceptable speech and the other unacceptable? Are both acceptable? Neither?

Of course, the cannibal metaphor was employed by Jonathan Swift in his satirical essay “A Modest Proposal,” which we teach in public schools.

When Reverend Jesse Jackson referred to President Trump as a slave master and knee-takers as slaves, I can’t recall anyone on the left or right batting their exquisitely sensitive eyes. Are only blacks allowed to use slave metaphors, or does it depend wholly on whose ox is being gored with condemnation that determines whether metaphors should send adults to the fainting couch?

While their sanctimonious and empty proclamations of fealty to inclusivity, love, equality, tolerance, subjectivism, autonomy, freedom, and diversity echo systemically throughout American institutions, Leftists reveal their inky underbellies rotted with hypocrisy and depravity when they screech hater and hurl death wishes at those who dare to disagree with Big Brother, Critical Race Theory, or their anarchical sexuality ideology.

But it’s not just leftists, secularists, and atheists who faux-tie their own panties in a twist about bold language from conservatives. Even conservatives get the heebie-jeebies if Christians use bold language.

In a mostly moving tribute to his “close friend” Mike Adams, political pundit David French made sure to include that, although protected by the First Amendment, some of Adams’ writing was “acerbic,” “intemperate,” “insensitive,” “excessively provocative,” and “outright infuriating.” French further said, he “cringed at some,” of Adams’ comments and that “my friend could frustrate me. He could say things I disagreed with. He could say things that outraged me. He could be wrong.”

With “close friends” like French to write a tribute, who needs enemies.

New Testament professor and friend of Mike Adams, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, wrote about Adams’ sadness at the socially distancing of David French:

[W]hen [Mike] reached out to David by phone for help in his hour of greatest crisis in June 2020, he viewed David’s brush-off as due to the negative change in David in the Trump era. While he couldn’t be entirely surprised by David’s failure to help, there’s no question that it was a body blow to his gut. He twice initiated mention of David to me in mid-June and on July 1. I didn’t bring David French up as a topic of conversation. Mike did, unsolicited from me. …

Mike felt that David had abandoned him precisely because he didn’t share David’s NeverTrump stance and because of David’s heightened desire to distance himself from Mike’s tweets in order to preserve his (David’s) reputation with people on the Left. …

I would never say that David French single-handedly killed Mike Adams. … David was simply the most painful among many acts of silence and detachment toward Mike by Christian “elites” and “friends” at his end. The primary blame belongs with the vicious Left.

Every Christian on the frontlines of the culture war has experienced the voluntary social distancing of brothers and sisters in Christ who don’t want to be tainted by friendship with cultural lepers. We all know the experience of having friends or colleagues either secretly whisper their thanks for our work, or avoid us entirely, or turn against us. There’s no skin in the game for many Christians when the game gets rough. Instead of marching into battle accoutered with the armor of God, they scuttle into their safe havens accoutered with protective platitudes acceptable to God’s enemies.

Oddly, I’ve seen very little criticism of Andrew Klavan—another Christian who uses satire brilliantly and effectively to mock stupid and evil ideas that deserve mockery. For example, assuming the voice of a presumptuous Hollywood celebrity, Klavan recently wrote,

I take responsibility for being a fatuous, virtue-signaling, useless, celebrity knucklehead. Which is a much better life than yours by the way. For which I take complete responsibility… and then run away before you realize I haven’t done a damn thing for you and your life still sucks.

Before reading Klavan’s satires, all those legions of PC Christians holed up in their bunkers hoping no unbelieving colleague learns they disapprove of homosexuality better stock up on smelling salts.

Not quite a year ago, I wrote an article about the superintendent of a large Illinois high school district who sexually integrated all locker rooms in the five-school district—a decision so wicked that all Christians should have felt enraged.

He was aided and abetted by wealthy Hollywood Matrix director “Lana” Wachowski—a man who pretends to be a woman—homosexuals from outside the district, and a school board member with a vile sexuality podcast for children. In strong language, I wrote about this evil action and the vipers who promoted it.

In response, I received an email from a conservative Christian who identified herself as the “dean of rhetoric” in a “Christian co-school.” She chastised my “language and tone,” saying that she found them “disturbing.” She criticized the “vitriol and loaded language … name calling and hyperbole” and “uncharitable language,” saying it “would never be tolerated” in her rhetoric classes, that she was “disappointed to read” such language, and that she found my “writing style offensive.”

So, a Christian is teaching children that the use of biblical language and tone are sinful even when describing egregious sin.

I asked if she had ever sent an email with as much passion and strong language as the one she sent to me to any of the many political leaders, public school teachers, administrators, or heretical “Christian” leaders who promote sexual deviance to children. No response.

“Progressives” use the phrase “my truth” a lot—a phrase that Boston College philosophy professor Dr. Peter Kreeft describes as both oxymoronic and moronic. Much of what “progressives” affirm as “their truth,” seems to be sexual desires that originate in their dark bellies—or what in The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis calls the seat of mere animal appetites.

Lewis argues that to protect against domination by our imperious appetites, human emotions must be properly trained:

Without the aid of trained emotions, the intellect is powerless against the animal organism…. The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful.

Do tell, Christian brothers and sisters who favor warm milquetoasty language at all times, how do we train human animals of all sizes to feel disgust and hatred of those things which really are disgusting and hateful while using only warm milquetoasty language?

Lewis continues, describing what education should do:

Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it—believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit, our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt. … Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought.

Yes, there are things—desires, ideas, images, words, and acts—for which we should properly feel hatred. The prophet Amos said, “Hate evil, and love good.” In Romans, Paul teaches us “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” For love to be genuine or true, we must abhor what is evil.

Children must be taught to feel love for the good and feel hatred for that which is evil, which is wholly different from hating people. True love requires first knowing what is true and good. Affirming in and to people that which God detests is not love; affirming in and to people that which God detests is detestable.

“Progressives” understand that the emotions must be trained, which is why they use the arts—especially our myth-making machine, Hollywood, and government schools to shape the hearts of America’s children. Tragically, since “progressives” don’t know truth, they’re training America’s children to love evil and hate good.

In our public schools, interactions with friends, and Facebook posts, we have at our disposal many tools for training emotions, among which are rhetorical tools. The Bible warns that the tongue “is a restless evil, full of deadly poison,” and that “Kind words are like honey—sweet to the soul and healthy for the body.” But such verses do not and cannot possibly mean Christians must never use strong language or sarcasm. We know that because the Bible includes numerous examples of the use of strong language and mockery.

Amos called women fat “cows” and warned that God would take them away by harpoons or fishhooks. Imagine how today’s evanjellyfishes would feel if a Christian were to use that biblical language.

Paul wrote this to Titus: “As one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.” In other words, Paul called Cretans liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons.

Jesus said,

“You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! … You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.”

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”

Paul said this about sinners,

There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”

In Revelation, those who are not saved are called “dogs.”

Peter describes false teachers—of which we have many in the church today—as “irrational animals … born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant. … They are blots and blemishes. … Accursed children!”

Paul calls the Galatians, “foolish Galatians.”

John the Baptist called the multitudes a “brood of vipers.”

If the dean of rhetoric of the Christian co-school thinks calling a top school leader who sexually integrates the locker rooms of 12,000 minor children “depraved” undermines our witness—as she claimed I did—then logically she must think John the Baptist undermined his witness by calling the multitudes a brood of vipers.

Theologian and pastor Doug Wilson makes clear that the Bible does not mandate the kind of saccharine language that corrupts evangelicalism or prohibit bold, bracing, condemnatory language from which many evangelicals flee:

Evangelical Christians are very sweet people and there’s an upside to that. … But they’re so sweet they can’t be friends with diabetics. And what happens is, if you respond to the prevailing ungodliness with a response that’s tart, or serrated, or pungent, or satiric, you will have more than a few Christians taking you aside saying, “Hey brother, you probably don’t want to talk to them that way. … Would Jesus have responded that way?” And when you reply, “Well, yes, he would have. And here’s how he did it in Matthew 23 where he disassembles the Pharisees.”

[Evangelical Christians] don’t have a category for that. They’re so used to having Christlikeness defined by their ecclesiastical culture instead of having Christlikeness defined by the Bible, it is astonishing for many Christians to discover that this kind of verbal polemical engagement is preeminently biblical. It’s a very common biblical way of expressing righteousness. … If you take the smarmy, sweetie, nice discourse that many Christians think is supposed to be the norm and drive it into the Bible, you can’t find examples of that anywhere.

American philosopher and Catholic, Dr. Edward Feser, shares Wilson’s disdain for the unbiblical and unhelpful contemporary perversion of the Christian obligation to love our neighbors:

Niceness. Well, it has its place. But the Christ who angrily overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, who taught a moral code more austere than that of the Pharisees, and who threatened unrepentant sinners with the fiery furnace, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, was not exactly “nice.”

Feser finds fault with the unbiblical notion that “even a great many churchmen seem to have bought into,” which is that “inoffensive ‘niceness’ is somehow the essence of the true Christian, or at least of any Christian worthy of the liberal’s respect.” He argues that in,

innumerable vapid sermons one hears about God’s love and acceptance and forgiveness, but never about divine judgment or the moral teachings to which modern people are most resistant—and which, precisely for that reason, they most need to hear expounded and defended.

Feser argues against church “teachings on sexual morality” that are delivered “half-apologetically, in vague and soft language, and in a manner hedged with endless qualifications”:

Such “niceness” is in no way a part of Christian morality. It is a distortion of the virtues of meekness (which is simply moderation in anger—as opposed to too much or too little anger), and friendliness (which is a matter of exhibiting the right degree of affability necessary for decent social order—as opposed to too little affability or too much).

Maybe, just maybe, if every theologically orthodox Christian spoke in biblical tones and language about the perversity and corruption that confront our children every day in their TV shows, picture books, and government schools, and defile our society there would be less of it, and maybe, just maybe Mike Adams would still be alive.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/How-May-Christians-Speak.mp3

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute. As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

On July 23, 2020, conservative University of North Carolina professor, Townhall writer, and Christian, Mike Adams, was driven to suicide by the vile and relentless bullying of devotees of diversity and teachers of tolerance who fancy themselves “progressive.” They were aided and abetted by spineless Christians who failed to come alongside a brother in Christ because of his “sins” of violating leftist language rules.

read more

On July 10 at Walled Lake Western High School in Michigan, popular teacher Justin Kucera who taught AP World History and coached varsity baseball and basketball and who by all accounts never brought his politics into his teaching or coaching was fired for tweeting, “I’m done being silent. Donald Trump is our president.” Meanwhile,

Paulette Loe, a now-retired Walled Lake Western teacher, encouraged students to read an article from the Atlantic about “how to beat Trump” while still employed. Nicole Estes, a kindergarten teacher in the district, called Trump a “sociopath” and a “narcissist” on Facebook in 2016 and is still employed at Keith Elementary School [also in Walled Lake Consolidated school district].

It should be unbelievable that a teacher could be fired from a government school for expressing his support for a sitting president while indoctrinators are free to bring their politics into the classroom regularly with no fear of retribution. Sadly, this is now the new normal.

Twelve years ago when I was a member of the English Department at Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore working full-time in the writing center, teachers Elliott Hurtig and Jeff Berger-White were teaching the repugnant play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, and Hurtig was also teaching the historically inaccurate Laramie Project, both plays of which espoused politically “progressive,” morally regressive views of homosexuality.

Setting aside the egregious obscenity in Angels in America, I discussed with a purportedly Catholic writing center colleague the ethical problem of teachers presenting resources from only one side of the debate on this most controversial cultural issue. I made the case that in an educational environment, teachers have an obligation to present resources from opposing voices as well. She responded that because she was absolutely sure opposing voices—that is, conservative voices—were wrong, they shouldn’t be allowed to be presented to students.

This is the kind of presumptuousness that has long poisoned education in America from elementary schools through colleges and universities, and has created a dissolute and destructive culture. Leftists demand absolute autonomy and arrogate to themselves the right to indoctrinate other people’s children because they have unilaterally concluded that their political and moral beliefs are objectively true, and opposing views are false. From kindergarten on up, leftists are indoctrinating other people’s children with their arguable leftist beliefs on homosexuality, opposite-sex impersonation, race, sex, American history, and presidential politics with no negative repercussions.

In his essay “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mills presciently warns about the very arrogance infecting today’s “educators” hell-bent on imposing their beliefs on vulnerable, ideologically malleable students:

The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them self-evident and self-justifying. … People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief …  that their feelings … are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person’s preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people’s liking instead of one. … his own preference … is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety.

In a recent appearance on Mark Levin’s program Life, Liberty & Levin, Dr. John Ellis, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of German Literature at the University of California at Santa Cruz, chairman of the California Association of Scholars, and author of Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities and The Breakdown of Higher Education: How It Happened, the Damage It Does, and What Can Be Done discussed the root cause of the cultural “shout downs” and riots:

The real problem is way behind the scenes in the classrooms, which the public never sees. … you’ve had a very long campaign of converting the universities into one party campuses. If you go back 50 years … there were 3 left-of-center professors to 2 right-of-center professors. … that’s consistent with a very healthy debate between the left and the right on campus. But by … 1999, a study shows 5 to 1. … By another five to six years later, it’s gone to 8 to 1, and the current studies … coming out now, it’s something like 13 to 1. There’s every reason to believe that that’s getting more extreme all the time because one of these studies looks to the junior ranks—assistant professors, associate professors—and found that the ratio there, left to right, is 48 to 1.  … The hiring being done now is at the rate of about 50 to 1. … So, you’re going to wind up with a complete monoculture within a short period of time. And a one-party campus is a campus that’s dysfunctional. …

The campus is so far left and so irrational now, and it’s leftism that is poisoning the culture. One profession after another is being essentially corrupted. … It’s totally poisoned journalism. It’s poisoned the teaching in the high schools because the high school teachers are all trained on college campuses

Ellis also suggests that parents who continue to send their children to colleges and universities that are in the business of poisoning culture are part of the problem:

Parents have a very fixed attitude, derived from the past, that sending their kids to college is a first rate way to launch them into a life and a career, and then there’s the fact that those great names of the institutions of higher learning of Harvard, Yale, Columbia … are very, very impressive. It casts a kind of spell over the public. They really cannot believe … that what was so glorious is now in fact no longer there.

Conservatives often ask what they can do to help restore health to our ailing culture. Here’s one thing they can do: Don’t send their children to colleges and universities that have “monocultures,” and through those monocultures, poison culture.

Stop being impressed by the worldly accolades poured on the polluted Ivies that now oppose their original mission statements, mottos, logos, and seals. Harvard long ago rejected its original mission statement:

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.

The Princeton University shield once depicted an open Bible inscribed with “VET NOV TESTAMENTUM,” that signified the Old and New Testaments; a ribbon above the Bible that said, “VITAM MORTUIS REDDO,” which means, “I restore life to the dead”; and a ribbon below the shield with the words “DEI SUB NUMINE VIGET,” which mean, “Under God’s power she flourishes.” Such expressions today would be an embarrassment to the faculty and a trigger to most students.

Dartmouth College’s original motto was “VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO,” which is translated as “A voice crying out in the wilderness,” an allusion to Scripture about preparing the world for Christ. Ironically, Dartmouth is now a cacophonous voice creating wilderness out of the semi-tamed culture Christianity created.

When teachers and college professors preach their leftist sermons in schools, not only do they indoctrinate, but they also leave dissenters at the mercy of social tyrants. In other words, government school preachers and college professors fuel bullying. In “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mills writes,

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first … chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.”

You know there’s a problem when a left-leaning site like the satirical website the Onion skewers the close-minded propaganda that leftists identify as “education” as it did in a post titled “College Encourages Lively Exchange of Idea”:

As an institution of higher learning, we recognize that it’s inevitable that certain contentious topics will come up from time to time, and when they do, we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion. … Whether it’s a discussion of a national political issue or a concern here on campus, an open forum in which one argument is uniformly reinforced is crucial for maintaining the exceptional learning environment we have cultivated here.(emphasis added for fun).

Leftists are fond of saying that free speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences. They fail to acknowledge that if those consequences are loss of employment, First Amendment speech protections are, in effect, nullified. And we all know, leftists couldn’t care less.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Education-in-a-Pro-Propaganda-Culture_podcast_01.mp3

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute.
As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Christ has already won. It’s interesting that leftists have adopted BCE and CE in order to no longer refer to Christ. No matter, Christ still wins. In the meantime, the devil roams the earth lying and destroying. Now, after decades of canceling conservatives through a thousand tiny cuts and an occasional deep slash, the Reformers smell all that yummy human blood and are mercilessly cannibalizing their own.

read more