Being a Believer in America has become a complicated business lately. I should probably clarify, I’m not speaking about just any sort of believer. After all, believing “there is no god but Allah” is not complicated. You’ll earn a scandalous amount of slack and dhimmitude from a general populace too credulous to believe your insincerity. And it’s not all that difficult being a believer in Scientology or the other cultish theologies either. If a doctrinal complication pops up, it’s easy enough to amend your “divine” revelation and carry on as if the golden plates had green-lighted caffeinated beverages from the beginning.

No, I’m speaking primarily of the complications involved in following one of the more orthodox faiths like Christianity, Catholicism, and Judaism. It seems the complication stems from an unprecedented number of non-believers opining about the dictates of our God and our faith. Anyone and everyone seems willing (and somehow qualified?) to open their mouths and reveal their biblical acumen, whether they’ve actually read a page from a Bible in their lifetime or not. True, we’ve always dealt with the Matthew 7 crowd, who learned one Bible verse and has been using it as a cudgel to defend their own iniquities ever since, but this is different.

We have Marxists in the Obama Administration telling us that Jesus was a refugee, in an effort to justify open immigration. There are Anarchists, squatting in tent cities, claiming that Jesus was part of the 99%. Nearly any Muslim you meet will be more than happy to explain to you that Christ was a prophet of Allah and was saved from the Crucifixion before He died on the cross. Celebrities of all stripes stand up to declare that there is no cognitive dissonance between their Christian beliefs and their support of the homosexual movement. Pastors and spokes-idiots from major Christian congregations have waved the rainbow flag, declaring that they “aren’t anointed” to speak on sin and that Jesus “never made a statement on homosexuality”. Well garsh, the Lord never made a statement on voter fraud or sex slavery either. Are you suggesting it’s time for Christians to embrace the rights of citizens to fraudulently vote as many times as they like, bringing along their indentured harem to help stuff the ballot box, Pastor?

Why all the biblical static? Why now? Christians have always been maligned for their abstinence from worldly indulgence. Why is there so much noise around the person of Christ and so much antagonism towards the historical Christian position? As with many of the flaws of our modern world, the most obvious answer is moral relativism. The more people are educated in our morally-bankrupt public schools, the more pervasive relativism becomes.

The Hegelian “synthesis”, which Francis Schaeffer warned about, has become pandemic. We no longer live in an antithetical world, where right and wrong are incompatible. Instead of thinking in terms of thesis/antithesis, the two are now combined into a synthesis, crowning error and hamstringing truth. This embrace of Hegelian philosophy means that incompatible beliefs can now be BFFs. This is how we can explain phenomena like Jews for Palestine, LGBT Christians, Materialist Philosophers, and Christian Anarchists. When truth can be whatever you decide to make it, don’t be surprised at what walks through the front door.

Another more culpable reason for the distillation and confusion of the Judeo-Christian moral ethic is the prevalence of Milksop Christianity. When we think about some of the boldest and most unabashed voices defending Christianity today, we think of the Duck Commander, Franklin Graham, and Clash Daily’s own Doug Giles to name a few. Yes, there are undoubtedly more, but not many. With all due respect to these brothers and sisters, their firm, biblical stance today wouldn’t have even moved the needle 100 years ago. We’ve become soft and afraid, so the bold seem a bit taller today than times past.

A majority of today’s believers are biblically illiterate, not being able to distinguish between Saul the son of Kish and Saul of Tarsus. As Pastor Smiley has said, “If Jesus were here today, he wouldn’t be riding around on a donkey. He’d be taking a plane, he’d be using the media.” Let that wisdom marinate for a few… But it goes deeper than biblical illiteracy, today’s church is pusillanimous. Being illiterate when it comes to God’s word is inexcusable for a Christian, but being illiterate and scared? Abhorrent.

Yes, we serve a God who advocated a gentle answer and a loving response to nearly every situation. We also serve a Lord who thrashed a crowd of people when His Father’s house was suffering materialist prostitution. We serve a God whose Justice is as fearsome as His mercy is awesome. Read about the character of God in the words of His anointed messengers: the books of the prophets and the Psalms. Jeremiah, Isaiah, and the rest are literal windows onto the visage of our God.

“Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully,
And cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood.

“Make him drunk,
Because he exalted himself against the Lord.
Moab shall wallow in his vomit,
And he shall also be in derision.

“And Moab shall be destroyed as a people,
Because he exalted himself against the Lord.”

~Jeremiah 48:10, 26-27. 42

This is the Lord we serve and this is the standard of justice to which we will be called to account. Instead of being frightened by the prospect of social disapprobation, we should fear the One who can sweep a nation away for the sin of self-exaltation. Instead of being shouted down by those still in rebellion to their Maker, we should be emboldened by our God, who, though terrible in His wrath, extended a tender hand of grace to each of us, while we were yet steeped in sin.

Stop propagating the synthesis of truth and error. Don’t allow a strident enemy of God to dictate how He will be portrayed. Too often, we become like David’s brothers, huddled in the tent, playing Parcheesi while we try to block out the slanders of Goliath. Let us instead gather our smooth stones from the river and stand implacably for our God, come what may.

Written John Kirkwood

God’s Not Dead is an alarm for unconverted sinners and a wake-up call for slumbering Christians and that is why it is worth seeing, and seeing more than once. This is the movie for which the mall-churches should be buying out theaters and holding small groups; but you won’t see the world or the worldly church embrace God’s Not Dead because, frankly, it confronts them.

With only 780 screens the Pure Flix movie God’s Not Dead shocked Hollywood Box Office gurus by pulling in 9.2 million and a fourth place overall finish this past weekend. Raking in just under $12,000 per screen average, God’s Not Dead just may be the most popular top 5 movie that you’ve never heard about. The popularity of the film is being spread as the Gospel should be, by word of mouth from people who have seen it and been authentically touched by it.

Without the big budget or celebrity splash surrounding Son of God, this collaboration between Pure Flix and Freestyle Releasing has Variety and Entertainment Weekly hailing it as the “Biggest Shocker” and “Biggest Surprise” of the weekend. But this movie is a success for a different reason: It’s not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. On numerous occasions it shares that gospel in a direct and dramatic way.

Starring Kevin Sorbo [Hercules] and Dean Cain [Superman] with appearances by Willie and Korie Robertson of Duck Commander and the Christian rock band Newsboys, the low budget movie challenges status quo dismissal of true Christianity and defuses many of the stereotypes. When college freshman Josh Wheaton is challenged to defend his belief in God by his atheist philosophy teacher (Sorbo), he finds that his struggle transcends the classroom and forces him to choose between discipleship and his most cherished relationships.

The plot was inspired by real life cases of religious bigotry on college campuses, 40 of which are listed in the credits at the end of the film. And to all those who take their faith seriously, there are some very familiar moments in this film. The unanswered question that the movie poses is “What do Communism, Atheism, Liberalism and Shiny-Happy Christianity have in common?” The stunning answer is that they all, with differing levels of hostility, oppose the true disciple of Christ.

I don’t imagine that this movie will cause legions of unbelievers to walk the sawdust trail, although I do think that many may come to Christ as a result of the seeds planted, but the true effect of God’s Not Dead will be on the life of believers. It is an absolute challenge to true discipleship. Many are missing that point. Not only is the gospel shared on multiple occasions but more than once we are reminded,

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  – Matthew 10:32-33

In a time when Churchianity’s biggest names are busy denying the real Jesus and apologizing for his Word, God’s Not Dead stands out as a challenge to the embarrassed believer to let the dead bury their dead and to take up his cross. And this is why it will continue to be provocative.

The controversy over the movie Son of God came from within the Christian community for its social justice theme and its watering down of the gospel, while the movie was embraced by everyone from the ADL’s Abraham Foxman to the High Priestess of New Age possibility, Oprah Winfrey. The controversy over God’s Not Dead will not come from within the Christian community at all; it will come from Muslims, atheists and embarrassed believers. And with a plethora of reviews coming out about the movie Noah; the buzz about God’s Not Dead is poised to push it to a second eye-popping weekend as it expands to 1100 screens.

“I have not posted comments about Noah because I haven’t seen the film,” wrote Todd Starnes of Fox News.

That being said, I’m a bit perplexed by “celebrity” Christian leaders who are saying that Christians have a responsibility to see Noah – even if it’s contrary to the Bible. And a number of folks who’ve seen the film say it strays greatly from the Bible’s version of events. One “celebrity” Christian leader went so far as to say Christians would hurt their witness in Hollywood if they did not support the Noah film. That’s a load of fertilizer, friends. If all these pro-Noah Christian leaders are so passionate about Hollywood making faith films – why aren’t they promoting God’s Not Dead?

David Steiger, co-host of the Uncommon Show agreed:

Tell me, why it took a low budget group of virtual no names (apologies to Sorbo and Cain) to make so great a Gospel proclaiming movie, when Son of God could have and should have had that covered already? Where were the mega-pastors on this one – buying out theaters, telling their flock to skip church and go to the movie? Where are the “small group” books? Why are the mega-shepherds silent on what is easily the boldest Gospel movie in the last decade? I guess it doesn’t fit their narrative.

These men may be too gentlemanly to tell you what everyone is thinking: that the makers of God’s Not Dead did not pay for “spontaneous” acclaim. They didn’t offer a taste of the profits to “Christian mouthpieces” that would push their movie; like construction companies offering Tony Soprano a kickback to get a piece of the Esplanade. It’s called integrity and yes, there are still Christians, even prominent ones that have it. And that is why you don’t hear the big names pushing this movie, there’s no Mammon in it for them.

Most of the “supporters” that I have talked to about Son of God had not seen the movie and yet they still scolded me, though I had seen it, for critiquing it. The supporters of God’s Not Dead have seen the movie and are going back multiple times and bringing others with them. And that’s how I feel as well.

God’s Not Dead takes on all comers – the new Atheists, Islam and even Communism. And it does so without a sniveling apology for our existence as believers or for Christ’s exclusive claims. How so very faithful. How so very refreshing.

If I had any criticism of the movie, it’s that some of the characters are almost a caricature; too severe in their nature and forging a thread worn stereotype, but they do have some basis in reality: Kevin Sorbo could have been portraying Ted Turner, a bitter man turned hostile to God because of the excruciating experience of losing his sister at a young age. Fortunately, it doesn’t get in the way of the most daring Christian movie since The Passion of the Christ.

This article was originally published at the ClashDaily.com blog.

One of the stars of the popular A & E show Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, has been indefinitely suspended from the program. His crime was making some politically incorrect statements about homosexuality in a condescension-dripping interview with GQ magazine that rendered the homosexual community apoplectic. Hell hath no fury like homosexual activists who encounter dissent.

Here are some of the offending comments, which he offered in response to GQ’s question, “What, in your mind, is sinful?”:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” [The writer explained that that Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians]: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

…

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later.” 

Robertson may have answered in his own imitable voice, but much of what he said reflects the mind and will of God as revealed in the word of God.

And here’s how the contemporary founts of biblical exegesis, wisdom, truth, non-judgmentalism, non-condemnation, and tolerance, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), responded:

GLAAD: some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication,…his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation….Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe….He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. 

HRC: Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations….We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule—treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young America—not shame and ridicule them because of who they are.

A red-faced, stomping Rumplestiltskin’s got nothing on homosexual activists who unexpectedly hear truth when they expect obsequious silence.

Just a couple of brief responses to GLAAD’s and HRC’s statements:

1. What specifically were Robertson’s lies?
2. “True Christians” believe what Scripture—both Old and New Testaments—as well as most theologians in the history of the church teach.
3. Experiencing same-sex attraction is, like virtually all other sin inclinations, not chosen. How one responds to such inclinations, however, is a choice.
4. If homosexual acts are not moral, adults are not setting “a positive example” by affirming homosexuality as good.
5. We ought not “shame or ridicule” particular individuals, but all satire and joking involves making light of some aspect of the human condition, including our sins. Did the narrow-minded dogmatists at GLAAD and the HRC scold the television program Will and Grace, which made its bread and butter out of ridiculing and stereotyping homosexuals? Do they take umbrage at the satirical paper The Onion or at Saturday Night Live? What about the writing of Aristophanes, Juvenal, Chaucer, Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, H. L. Mencken, Dorothy Parker, Jack Paar, David Steinberg, Tom and Dick Smothers, P.J. O’Rourke, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Sedaris, Sarah Silverman, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park creators) who ridicule people mercilessly?

There are increasing numbers of Christians who believe our sole task as Christians is to love homosexuals—and by “love,” they mean, just be nice—and that we should never say anything to anger or offend them. These Christians fail to understand that this would certainly require that Christians refrain from ever saying publicly that homosexuality is an abomination in God’s eyes. But it’s not just Old Testament language that is too indelicate for the delicate sensibilities of “progressives” that must be silenced.

It’s any idea about homosexuality with which “progressives” disagree that must be silenced. We can’t say that same-sex attraction is disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or that God did not create men and women to experience same-sex attraction, or that Jesus affirms marriage only as a union of one man and one woman, or that Paul teaches that homosexuals (among others) will not see the kingdom of Heaven. And we certainly can’t point out the indelicate truth that the primary sex act of homosexual men is a pathogenic nightmare that results in countless sexually transmitted infections (including shigellosis) and untold suffering.  

The Left is caterwauling about Phil Robertson’s “judging” and “condemning,” all the while, of course, judging and condemning Phil Robertson. Either out of their own ignorance or Macchiavellian political expedience, the Left fails to make the distinction—publicly, at least—between judging the eternal destination of individuals and “judging” which behaviors are right and which are wrong. Everyone judges in that sense. Everyone does it every day. Every time the Left becomes indignant about the beliefs or political actions of conservatives, they have judged. A society that refuses to make judgments about what constitutes moral conduct could not make laws and would not long exist. A society that refuses to “condemn” wrong actions as wrong will collapse in moral anarchy.

What “progressives” condemn is any condemnation directed at any behavior of which they approve. And this is what leads to the hypocrisy virtually everyone can see in their laughable claims to value “diversity,” “tolerance,” free speech, and the First Amendment (which protects the free exercise of religion and says nothing about the free exercise of homo sex).

Ah, but “progressives” cleverly contrive an out for themselves by saying there is no moral imperative to tolerate intolerance or any statements that “harm” others. But notice two things: First, that this statement itself reflects a moral “judgment.” And second, it presumes agreement with the Left’s definition of harm.

I thought the destruction of marriage would be the cultural event that awakened the slumbering Christian masses. Perhaps it will instead be a hoary, hairy, much beloved Louisianan duck call-maker who loves Jesus Christ and fears God more than man.

The halcyon days for Christians in America are over, my friends. Religious liberty is fast-diminishing—well, for orthodox Christians it is, not for fundamentalist Mormons who want multiple wives.

Prepare for persecution, and consider it joy to encounter trials for Christ who suffered the ultimate trial—the one that heaped scorn on him, cost him his life, and saved ours. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to the executives at A&E Network, to let them know what you think of their intolerance, religious bigotry, and viewpoint discrimination.

Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $50,000 by the end of the month – Donate today! 

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  

You can also send a gift by mail to:

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, IL  60188

An interview can get you into big trouble. Remember General Stanley McChrystal? He was the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan until he gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 and criticized his Commander in Chief. Soon thereafter, he was sacked. This time the interview controversy surrounds Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company and star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Robertson gave an interview to GQ (formerly known as Gentlemen’s Quarterly), and now he has been put on “indefinite suspension” from the program.

Why? Because of controversy over his comments on homosexuality.

Phil Robertson is the plainspoken patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan. In the GQ interview, published in the January 2014 issue of the magazine, Robertson makes clear that his Christian faith is central to his identity and his life. He speaks of his life before Christ and actively seeks to convert the interviewer, Drew Magary, to faith in Christ. He tells Magary of the need for repentance from sin. Magary then asks Robertson to define sin. He responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Christians will recognize that Robertson was offering a rather accurate paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point. As Magary explained, “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out.”

Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; he was making the argument that homosexual acts are against nature. The Apostle Paul makes the very same argument in Romans 1:26. The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson’s language and the context of his statements.

The Apostle Paul made the same arguments, but worshipers in the congregations of Rome and Corinth did not have to put hands over the ears of their children when Paul’s letter was read to their church.

The entire Duck Dynasty enterprise is a giant publicity operation, and a very lucrative enterprise at that. Entertainment and marketing machines run on publicity, and the Robertsons have used that publicity to offer winsome witness to their Christian faith. But GQ magazine? Seriously?

Not all publicity is good publicity, and Christians had better think long and hard about the publicity we seek or allow by our cooperation.

Just ask Gen. McChrystal. In the aftermath of his embarrassing debacle, the obvious question was this: why would a gifted and tested military commander allow a reporter for Rolling Stone such access and then speak so carelessly? Rolling Stone is a magazine of the cultural left. It was insanity for Gen. McChrystal to speak so carelessly to a reporter who should have been expected to present whatever the general said in the most unfavorable light.

Similarly, Phil Robertson would have served himself and his mission far better by declining to cooperate with GQ for a major interview. GQ is a “lifestyle” magazine for men, a rather sophisticated and worldly platform for the kind of writing Drew Magary produced in this interview. GQ is not looking for Sunday School material. Given the publicity the interview has now attracted, the magazine must be thrilled. Phil Robertson is likely less thrilled.

Another interesting parallel emerges with the timing of this controversy. The current issue of TIME magazine features Pope Francis I as “Person of the Year.” Within days of TIME’s declaration, Phil Robertson had been suspended from Duck Dynasty. Robertson’s suspension was caused by his statements that homosexual acts are sinful. But Pope Francis is riding a wave of glowing publicity, even as he has stated in public his agreement with all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, including its teachings on homosexual acts.

Francis has declared himself to be a “son of the church,” and his church teaches that all homosexual acts are inherently sinful and must be seen as “acts of grave depravity” that are “intrinsically disordered.”

But Pope Francis is on the cover of TIME magazine and Phil Robertson is on indefinite suspension. Such are the inconsistencies, confusions, and hypocrisies of our cultural moment.

Writing for TIME, television critic James Poniewozik argued that Robertson’s error was to speak so explicitly and openly, “to make the subtext text.” He wrote:

Now, you’ve got an issue with those of us who maybe just want to watch a family comedy about people outside a major city, but please without supporting somebody thumping gay people with their Bible. Or a problem with people with gay friends, or family, or, you know, actual gay A&E viewers.

By speaking so openly, Robertson crossed the line, Poniewozik explains.

A&E was running for cover. The network released a statement that attempted to put as much distance as possible between what the network described as Robertson’s personal beliefs and their own advocacy for gay rights:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.

So, even as most evangelical Christians will likely have concerns about theway Phil Robertson expressed himself in some of his comments and wherehe made the comments, the fact remains that it is the moral judgment he asserted, not the manner of his assertion, that caused such an uproar. A quick look at the protests from gay activist groups like GLAAD will confirm that judgment. They have protested the words Robertson drew from the Bible and labeled them as “far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people.”

So the controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life: Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.

In a statement released before his suspension, Phil Robertson told of his own sinful past and of his experience of salvation in Christ and said:

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Those are fighting words, Phil. They are also the gospel truth.

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com blog.