“Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning.”  ~The Heritage Foundation

To vocal opponents of judicial activism, this comes as little surprise. The U.S. Supreme Court has suffered a major credibility blow in the wake of its politically motivated 5-4 Obergefell v. Hodges “gay marriage” opinion. In it, they presumed to do the impossible – both redefine the age-old institution of natural marriage and to give this fictional definition precedent over freedoms actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights. According to Rasmussen, only “36 percent of Likely U.S. Voters still think the high court is doing a good or excellent job.”

Incredibly, even the Chicago Tribune had this scathing assessment of the high court:

“We must confess we are shocked at the violence and servility of the Judicial Revolution caused by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. We scarcely know how to express our detestation of its inhuman dicta, or to fathom the wicked consequences which may flow from it. … This decision has sapped the constitution [sic] of its glorious and distinctive features, and seeks to pervert it into a barbarous and unchristian channel … Jefferson feared this Supreme Court, and foretold its usurpation of the legislative power of the Federal Government. His prophecy is now reality. The terrible evil he dreaded is upon us.”

As many of us warned, this opinion is already being used to crush Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. This was not lost on the Tribune, which added, “To say or suppose, that a Free People can respect or will obey a decision so fraught with disastrous consequences to the People and their Liberties, is to dream of impossibilities. No power can take away their rights. They will permit no power to abridge them.”

The New York Tribune was equally dismissive: “The decision, we need hardly say, is entitled to just as much moral weight as would be the majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.”

OK, I’ll come clean. The above quotes are not in reference to Obergefell. But they might as well have been. These quotes addressed the U.S. Supreme Court’s equally illegitimate 1857 Dred Scott decision. Whereas, in Dred Scott, the justices defied natural law and presumed a “right” for whites to own blacks, the court’s 2015 Obergefell decision likewise defied natural law and presumed to deconstruct and redefine the institution of marriage.

Both decisions are illegitimate, and here’s why. For the U.S. Supreme Court to justifiably overturn some law duly passed by the United States Congress, its opinion must be deeply rooted in one or more of the following:

1. A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution;
2. Some prior court precedent;
3. History and the Common Law;
4. Our cultural customs or traditions;
5. Some other law enacted by Congress.

As the high court’s four dissenting justices rightly observed in Obergefell, the “five attorneys” who invented this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage,” failed, abysmally, on each and every requirement.

The same was true of Dred Scott.

And so both opinions should be summarily ignored.

As President Andrew Jackson famously quipped of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion he thought usurped his executive authority, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

After the Dred Scott decision was released, Sen. William Pitt Fessenden, R-Maine, who later served as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of treasury, said this: “[It is charged] that I am undermining the institutions of the country by attacking the Supreme Court of the United States! I attack not their decision, for they have made none; it is their opinion.”

Over the last few decades, the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, have, for some inexplicable reason, acquiesced to the notion of judicial supremacy – a dangerously dominant concept that erroneously regards the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all things public policy. If this is so, then these nine unelected lawyers are ultimately unaccountable to anyone or anything, and the other two branches of government are but toothless figurehead bodies merely spinning their wheels while spending our dollars.

This flies in the face of the framers’ intent. It’s also the very unfortunate reality under which we live. It is fully within the constitutional authority of the other two branches of government to rein in these judges gone wild.

Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to “check” judicial activism, up to and including when justices illegitimately legislate from the bench: “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Our Republican-led Congress, from a regulatory standpoint, has the absolute constitutional authority to smack down this rogue U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, to date, it has either been unwilling or unable to do so.

Still, it’s not Republicans alone who must halt this judicial imperialism. Freedom-loving Democrats, to the extent that such animal yet exists, must also join the fight. After the Dred Scott opinion, they did.

“[F]orthwith we are told that the Supreme Court of the United States has become the appointed expounder of Democratic principles. Since when?” asked Sen. George Pugh, D-Ohio. “Who constituted the judges of the Supreme Court the makers or expounders of Democratic principle? Certainly not Thomas Jefferson, who pronounced them the sappers and miners of the Constitution; certainly not Andrew Jackson, who told them he would interpret his own oath, as well as his own principles, according to his views of the Constitution. … When we get to going by courts, it seems to me we have departed from the whole spirit and principle of the Democratic Party.”

My, how the Democratic Party has changed.

In the vast majority of their writings the Founding Fathers were explicit that the judicial branch of government is effectively the weakest of the three. Regrettably, such is not the case with today’s modern misapplication. Americans currently live under what is, for all intents and purposes, a counter-constitutional judiciocracy led by nine unelected, unaccountable, black-robed autocrats.

No, five extremist lawyers don’t get to decide “the law of the land.” Only the legislature can do that. The high court merely issues opinions.

And then the other two branches decide what, if anything, to do with them.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that true rights are God-given and unalienable.

Religious free exercise is sacrosanct.

“Gay marriage” is pretend.

And the U.S. Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

By Michael Foust

Every time I begin watching a new movie by filmmakers Alex and Stephen Kendrick, a thought crosses my mind.

Will this be the one that bombs?

My fears are always eased after about 10 minutes, at which point I begin contemplating another question.

Have they topped their most recent film … again?

Such questions are inevitable for the Kendricks, who up until this year had four faith-based movies to their credit: “Flywheel” (2003), “Facing the Giants” (2006), “Fireproof” (2008) and “Courageous” (2011) – each of which was widely considered better than its predecessor.

This week the Kendricks release their fifth movie, “War Room,” which is rated PG and stars Priscilla Shirer, T.C. Stallings and Karen Abercrombie, three people you probably don’t remember ever seeing on the big screen but three you won’t ever forget, for all the right reasons.

So, is “War Room” better than “Courageous,” a film that opened in the Top 5? In my view, yes.

“War Room” tells the story of Tony and Elizabeth Jordan, a middle class married dad and mom heading for a likely divorce when a prayer-filled elderly widow – Miss Clara – enters the picture. Elizabeth is the real estate agent trying to sell Miss Clara’s house, but she soon learns that Miss Clara’s abode is not the typical home. Sure, there is a kitchen, a bathroom and a bedroom, but there’s also a room reserved only for one thing: prayer. Dozens of hand-written notes line the walls, listing everything for which she takes to the Lord.

“This is where I do my fighting,” Miss Clara says. “This is my war room.”

And so Miss Clara begins discipling Elizabeth, trying to help save her marriage and encouraging her to pray for Tony even when he’s a jerk (which he is a lot).

“If you give me one hour a week, I can teach you how to fight the right way with the right weapons,” Miss Clara says.

“War Room” succeeds as a film for the same reason that “Fireproof” and “Courageous” did: It has a great story, something that is lacking in so many Hollywood films today that give us multi-million-dollar special effects with 10 cent plots. It succeeds because, unlike those same Hollywood films, it does more than just entertain us. “War Room” moves us, convicts us, inspires us. I walked out of “Fireproof” wanting to be a better husband, “Courageous” wanting to be a better dad, and “War Room” wanting to be a prayer warrior. It also succeeds because it has just enough funny moments to allow you to catch your breath between the emotional scenes.

The Kendricks, you see, get it. They know how to make a great movie because they know that story is king. They also get it because they’re always working to improve their craft. They’re well aware of the “cheesy” label many moviegoers have placed on Christian films, and they understand that even before their next movie hits theaters, a large segment of the Hollywood population already has written it off.

But it’s becoming harder and harder to disregard them. For example, “Courageous” in 2011 finished first among four opening weekend films, outperforming a Universal film that had a $50 million budget (“Dream House”) and a Fox movie that had a $20 million budget (“What’s Your Number?”). “Courageous” had a budget of $2 million – pennies by Hollywood standards. And 2008’s “Fireproof” was the top independent film of the year, opening in the Top 5 and ending its run with a $33 million gross – far beyond its $500,000 budget.

It’s also becoming harder to disregard them because their movies keep getting better. Stallings’ performance in “War Room” is outstanding, and Shirer – who took acting classes for the film — does incredibly well, too. In fact, they’re involved in two of the most powerful scenes I’ve ever witnessed in a movie – scenes that had me in tears.

All five Kendrick movies are the culmination of a life-long dream Alex Kendrick had to make films to impact the church and culture – which they’ve certainly done. He and his brother recently calculated that they would have to preach to 1,000 people every Sunday for the next 100 years to reach the same amount of people they reached with “Fireproof” back in 2008.

“We have been surprised at what God has done, in the midst of all our inadequacy,” Stephen Kendrick told me recently.

That humility perhaps is one reason God has blessed their ministry so much. I’m not sure they’ll ever make a bad movie. But I do know this is another good one.

Entertainment rating: 5 out of 5 stars. Family friendly rating: 5 out of 5 stars.

“War Room” is rated PG for thematic elements. It contains no sexuality or coarse language. Post-movie discussion topics: the power of prayer; the need for a scheduled daily “prayer time;” what Scripture says about prayer; the shallowness of our prayers.

This article was originally posted at www.christianpost.com

The housing market wasn’t the only bubble which burst in 2008. It was the first time many Christian conservatives realized just how much had changed and how far afield we had corporately strayed. Not only were our most stable assets, our homes and banking institutions, vulnerable to predation and illusory in their permanence, but our friends, neighbors, and even family members were gullible enough to drool over a nebulous politician from Chicago who planned to harness the political machinery in Washington to heal the planet.

For many, this was the first inkling that something was rotten in Denmark. Not that all was peaches and cream up to then. September 11^th was only seven short years prior. But until the fall of 2008, the case could be made that we were fundamentally untransformed, despite the horror of 9/11 and the emotional strain of multiple “military engagements” overseas. November 4^th, 2008 would change all of that.

Looking back, it almost feels like ancient history. It’s difficult to remember a time when good wasn’t castigated as evil and evil wasn’t celebrated as good. Together, we have fought the good fight for the past seven years, winning a few but losing more. And the entire time, we’ve keyed on specific guideposts, trusting them to pull us through, while our freedoms visibly eroded under the waves of a progressive tsunami.

“We can survive to the 2010 elections. We must.”

“2012 is only a couple years away! Let’s do what we can to slow things down until then.”

“If we can win big in 2014, we can limit the damage which can be done before the next Presidential election.”

“Check the calendar, I think Lame Duck Season is open! Bring on 2016!!”

Marking time until the next election was instinctual, almost a survival method for the habitually-abused; but in doing so, I believe we might have done ourselves a disservice. After all, there is no guarantee that things will get any better after the 2016 election cycle. As happened in 2010. 2012, and 2014, it’s possible that the conservative base will once again come out in startling numbers to sweep more Republicans into office on a cresting wave of outrage. As also happened in 2011, 2013, and 2015, this will make very little difference in our nation’s capitol. We have an Establishment Party which has already decided to marginalize anyone who breaks rank. This party resembles a coin with heads on both sides, one elephant and one donkey. Two heads—one coin. Two sides of one overarching agenda: to do whatever it takes to grow the federal leviathan and restrict individual liberty.

Like many of you, I pray that we will elect representatives who believe in the rule of law, inalienable rights, Constitutional fidelity, and American exceptionalism. But even if the 2016 Presidential ticket featured Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr., the political headwinds would still be prohibitive. Our nation is firmly under the direction of the Establishment Party, operating under the approval and protection of an adoring media. The Party has plenty of means to gum up the works and the lapdog reporters will spin it in the most favorable manner for the ruling class. All of this assumes a best-case scenario next November, that God-fearing conservatives actually make it into office…

So where does that leave us?

Forlorn? Dejected and unmotivated? Hardly.

As the Koheleth reminds us in the eleventh chapter of Ecclesiastes, the crops will not be planted if we wait for the winds to cease. The harvest will stand unreaped if we tarry for the sun to shine. There is a time for reading the weather and there is a time to plant and harvest. We have seen the dark clouds and we feel the wind growing stronger each day. Now is the time that we must plant. Now is time we must prepare for the harvest.

What does this mean, specifically? It means we use the opportunity which encroaching darkness provides. A lamp never shines brighter than when it is lit in complete darkness. Our nation is growing dark and just might continue to darken, despite all our efforts over the next year.  This should not deter us from standing together and continuing to plant with the seeds we’ve been given. Will our efforts be rewarded with another Great Awakening? God willing and the creek don’t rise.

But if the creek does rise or God’s righteous judgment falls on our land, we can consider ourselves even more splendidly blessed. As when Elijah was set against 400 prophets of Baal, God was not content to simply spark a fire from the wood which was stacked in front of His prophet. Instead, He led Elijah to douse the wood with water three times before accomplishing His purpose and setting it alight. If we too are stacked in front of a jeering mob and drenched with water, may we too have the privilege of blazing with His flame, made more astonishing and remarkable thanks to the adversity of our circumstances and the strength of God’s provision.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty & work to advance the truth
about the sanctity of life & importance of marriage in our culture!

I have an orange and blue tie that I like to wear, but being an Indianapolis Colts fan, it never entered my mind that it matched the colors of the Chicago Bears until some Bears fans at my church ruined it for me with that information a while back.  However, today I am a Bears fan, too.

Here’s why.  The legendary former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka was recently on a sports radio show in which the host brought up the Eagles recent hiring of the well known Christian, Tim Tebow, in the preseason and giving him another shot in the NFL as a quarterback.  The host apparently thought he might get the burly coach to dismiss this as a foolhardy move. The reaction he got from Ditka was probably not what he expected.

Coach Ditka:  “You see, now you’re talking to the wrong guy. If I were coaching in the NFL today, I’d acquire Tim Tebow, and find a place to use him in certain situations on my football team. Guys like Tim Tebow are good for sports, good for football and good for our country.  He’s got character and you can’t buy character.  A lot of people act like they have it, but they don’t have it when it comes down to the nitty gritty.”
 
Radio Host:   “Well I’m a Tebow fan too, and I agree with you on the character standpoint but it’s kind of hard to find a spot for character on a 46-man active roster, unless the guy can contribute.  That’s sort of where the rub is don’t you think?”
 
Coach Ditka:  “There’s always a place on your football team for character. You’re going to have a lot of spots where you don’t have that character, so you better have enough that you can overlap it.  
 
I am not saying you can win a championship with a guy who is a marginal passer, but again, I think he has the talent . . . It is not a popularity contest, guys. There are always guys we like or don’t like, I understand that, but when you start disliking people for the wrong reasons you’ve got the real problem.

By Anugrah Kumer

Several members of the Denver City Council have stalled a lease for a Chick-fil-A restaurant at the city’s international airport due to the fast-food chain’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

If the committee, which is scheduled to meet again on Sept. 1, chooses to reject the lease, any member can introduce it in the full council.

Robin Kniech, the council’s first openly gay member, was quoted as saying she didn’t want a local franchise generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.”

The Atlanta-based company, which is known for its commitment to employing biblical beliefs in its business practices and has a very loyal following in the South, has restaurants in approximately 1,775 locations.

The company’s founder, S. Truett Cathy, died at 93 in September 2014.

The fast-food chain received criticism and calls for boycott after the founder’s son and Chick-fil-A CEO Dan T. Cathy, in a 2012 interview on “The Ken Coleman Show,” said of the company: “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Though Dan Cathy later pledged the company would not champion any political agendas surrounding marriage or family, the Cathys stood firm on its Christian values.

According to the company’s website, “Truett Cathy, made the decision to close on Sundays in 1946 when he opened his first restaurant in Hapeville, Georgia. He has often shared that his decision was as much practical as spiritual. He believes that all franchised Chick-fil-A Operators and Restaurant employees should have an opportunity to rest, spend time with family and friends, and worship if they choose to do so. That’s why all Chick-fil-A Restaurants are closed on Sundays. It’s part of our recipe for success.”

After the founder Cathy’s death, megachurch Pastor Perry Noble described the-late restaurateur on Twitter as “a great man who built a great business, has a great family and kept your eyes on Jesus, you will be missed!”

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association CEO Franklin Graham posted on Facebook, “I knew Mr. Cathy for many years and had the privilege of riding motorcycles with him. He was a fine Christian gentleman that carried his Christian business principles throughout life. His restaurants were never open on Sunday out of respect for the Lord’s day. He was kind and extremely generous and used the profits from his business to help others. He will be greatly missed.”

Originally Posted on www.thechristianpost.com

The historic First Baptist Church of Greenville, South Carolina, announced in May that it would declare itself be “open and welcoming” to all people and that it would allow same-sex marriage and ordain openly homosexual ministers.

The move came after the church had undergone a “discernment” process under the leadership of a “LGBT Discernment Team.” That team brought a report to the church’s deacons, who then forwarded it to the congregation. The church then approved the statement by standing vote.

The statement is very clear: “In all facets of the life and ministry of our church, including but not limited to membership, baptism, ordination, marriage, teaching and committee/organizational leadership, First Baptist Greenville will not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The Greenville News told of the congregation’s discernment process and then introduced its news story like this:

“Would the congregation be willing to allow same-sex couples to marry in the church? To ordain gay ministers? To embrace the complexities of gender identity? In an evangelical church born in the antebellum South? Whose founder more than a century and a half ago served as the inaugural president of the Southern Baptist Convention? Here, in Greenville? The answer to each was ‘yes.’”

The congregation, now more than 180 years old, is one of the most historic churches in the South. It participated in the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845 and its pastor, William Bullein Johnson, became the SBC’s first president. The church was largely responsible for the birth of Furman University and its old “church house” became the first home of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1859. Few churches in the South can match its historical record.

Nevertheless, First Baptist Greenville and the Southern Baptist Convention had moved in very different theological directions in the last quarter of the twentieth century. The church was moving steadily in a more liberal direction and the Southern Baptist Convention was moving to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and a far more confessional understanding of its identity.

The church and the denomination were set on a collision course, and the congregation voted to withdraw from the Southern Baptist Convention in 1999. If that had not happened, the SBC would have moved to withdraw fellowship on the basis of the church’s announcement in May. The denomination has adopted a policy of withdrawing fellowship from any church that affirms or endorses homosexuality.

By the early 1990s, it was clear that the historic church and the denomination it helped to establish were operating in different theological worlds. The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention met stiff opposition from many old-line churches like First Baptist Church in Greenville. The Greenville church included many faculty members from nearby Furman University, which also separated itself from the South Carolina Baptist Convention.

The central issue of dispute was the inerrancy of the Bible. The more liberal faction in the SBC affirmed that the Bible is “authoritative,” but would not affirm inerrancy. Conservatives focused their arguments on the necessary affirmation that the Bible is completely without error. Both sides knew that the issues at stake ranged far beyond inerrancy, but both sides also knew that inerrancy was the central axis around which all other issues revolved.

On the masthead of the church’s newsletter announcing the report of the LGBT Discernment Team, the church states: “We believe in the authority of the Bible.” But the church’s affirmation of biblical authority did not constrain it in any way from rejecting the clear teachings of Scripture or from employing interpretive arguments that relativized the authority of the biblical text.

Having abandoned and rejected the inerrancy of the Bible, the congregation has no real means of affirming the authority of Scripture as anything more than an historic point of reference — inspired in some way and authoritative to some degree.

This is one of the central lessons now revealed two decades after the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention had gained control of the denomination. The moderate-to-liberal faction in the SBC is now affirming theological and moral positions that the leadership of that movement would have condemned at the height of the controversy. The old liberal wing of the SBC is marching steadily left, and the new generation of more liberal leaders is pushing far beyond where the older leadership of their own movement would have gone.

Evidence of that is seen in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a group that broke away from the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1990s, rejecting the affirmation of biblical inerrancy. On May 9, 1991, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship adopted an “Address to the Public” that explained why the group had separated from the SBC. “Many of our differences come from a different understanding and interpretation of Holy Scripture,” they said. “But the difference is not at the point of the inspiration and authority of the Bible.” They went on to state clearly: “The Bible neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching.”

Significantly, the claim that the difference between the SBC and the CBF was not over the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture is undermined by the document as a whole. While the SBC and the CBF may both affirm the inspiration and authority of the Bible, these are not equivalent affirmations. If the inerrancy of the Bible is not affirmed, plenary verbal inspiration is also not affirmed, nor is the authority of Scripture affirmed as extending to its very words. Moderates in the SBC generally affirmed a “dynamic” model of biblical inspiration that extends to the ideas of Scripture rather than to its words. This means that the Bible, when claimed as authority, is a collection of inspired ideas and that the actual words are not, in themselves, binding.

That explains how, in one generation, more liberal churches have reversed themselves on the question of homosexual behavior and relationships. Just one generation ago, virtually all of the churches now in the CBF clearly affirmed the sinfulness of homosexuality. Now, many are moving to affirm same-sex marriage and to ordain gay ministers.

The lesson — once a church or denomination is untethered from the inerrancy of the Bible, there is no brake on the relativizing effects of cultural pressure.

Interestingly, one key question now is whether the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship can survive this transformation intact. A younger generation of leaders is pressing forward with the full normalization of homosexuality, acceptance of same-sex marriage, and ordination of gay ministers. The CBF, however, while embracing many churches that have taken such actions, does not hire openly-gay staff. In 2000, the CBF National Coordinating Council adopted a policy that states: “Cooperative Baptist Fellowship does not allow for the expenditure of funds for organizations or causes that condone, advocate or affirm homosexual practice. Neither does this CBF organizational value allow for the purposeful hiring of a staff person or the sending of a missionary who is a practicing homosexual.”

The CBF is now set on a collision course with its own rising generation of leaders. They are not going to let that policy stand. How can they, when they are enthusiastically joining the LGBT revolution?

That 2000 CBF policy, still in effect, dates back to when an older generation was leading the CBF and it reflects the fact that many of the churches that were ready to join the CBF in the 1990 were not (yet) ready to endorse homosexuality. The CBF has no argument against homosexuality on biblical terms, so it is only a matter of time before it changes its policy. Even in 2000, the group announced the policy but claimed to take no “position” on homosexuality itself: “CBF values and respects the autonomy of each individual and local church to evaluate and make their own decision regarding social issues like homosexuality.”

Amazingly, a similar claim was made by Jim Dant, the pastor of First Baptist Greenville. The church announced that it was officially ready to ordain gay ministers and celebrate same-sex weddings, but the pastor told his church “we made no decision regarding the issue of homosexuality.”

That is theologically, biblically, morally, and even logically incoherent. The church most certainly did make a decision regarding homosexuality. Every single member of that church is now a member of a church that will accept same-sex couples as members, celebrate gay weddings, and ordain LGBT ministers. That is making a decision.

The congregation assigned a LGBT Discernment Team, but there is no evidence that the team made any effort to discern the Scriptures. Instead, it discerned the congregation itself, determining that “being open and welcoming to all is a part of the essential nature of our community of faith.”

There are big lessons here for every church, every denomination, and every Christian institution. Once biblical inerrancy is abandoned, there is no brake on theological and moral revisionism. The Bible’s authority becomes relative, and there is no anchor to hold the church to the words of Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian witness.

The discernment process at First Baptist Church in Greenville offers us all ample lessons that should lead to a more fundamental discernment: Without the affirmation that the Bible is inerrant, “discernment” leads to disaster.

This article was originally published at AlbertMohler.com

by Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

The campaign to put Cosmopolitan magazine behind blinders in stores is gaining momentum.

The magazine, which targets women ages 18-34 with explicit articles and pictures throughout, often also displays explicit images and teaser titles on the cover. Dawn Hawkins of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation brings families up to date on the campaign to hide the magazine cover.

“We got RiteAid and Delhaize America, which is the owner of Food Lion and Hanniford Stores, to put Cosmopolitan magazine behind blinders,” she says. “Then Walmart got back [with us] and said that its stores will do the same thing.”

Still, she explains, the problem is that in many stores the typically racy magazine cover is at eye level where children can see its inappropriate images. Hawkins says their campaign targets 30 companies that do display Cosmopolitan at eye level.

“Target staff wrote us a letter and said that they’re taking it into consideration, but they haven’t moved to change their policy,” she says. “So any help [that the OneNewsNow audience] could be in moving Target to change their policy would be valuable. [The same goes for] any other retailer that they see [displaying the magazine].”

Information on the 30 firms can be found at the group’s website, plus talking points that people can use to approach management and a flyer they can simply hand to management to draw attention to the problem.

Originally posted here

By Peter Sullivan

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Wednesday indicated he’ll oppose a bill backed by Republican leadership to defund Planned Parenthood.

Kirk is up for reelection next year and is a top Democratic target.

“In other states tissue donation programs should be investigated but in Illinois there is no similar program,” Kirk said in a statement to The Hill. “I do not plan to cut access to basic health care and contraception for women, the majority of whom have no other resources.”

Kirk is the second Republican senator to indicate opposition to the bill.

“I’m still looking at the bill, but if it is an immediate defunding of Planned Parenthood before we have more facts in, then I would likely oppose the amendment,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters Wednesday.

Many Senate Republicans, though, have been touting the bill and pressuring Democrats to support it.

Three controversial undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials candidly discussing the price of fetal tissue for medical research have sparked outrage.

Backers are pointing out that the money would be redistributed to other organizations, so there would be no overall cut in funding for women’s health services.

“We introduced legislation last night that would ensure taxpayer dollars for women’s health are spent on women’s health, not a scandal-plagued political lobbying giant,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Wednesday.

“It’s a simple choice,” he added. “Senators can either vote to protect women’s health, or they can vote to protect subsidies for a political group mired in scandal.”

This article was originally found on thehill.com

This is a letter written by a local pastor regarding Same Sex Marriage & SCOTUS.

Since there are some who think “silence gives consent” I would like to voice my opposition to the ruling of SCOTUS on the issue of same sex marriage.

First of all let me say God loves homosexuals.  Always has, always will.  God not only loves the homosexual but He loves all people.  That is wonderful good news for all of us.  We cannot reach a point where God does not love us!  However, God always hates sin which is any violation of his commandments.  This is the nature of God:  He always hates sin but He always loves the sinner.

On Friday, June 26th, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States of America handed down their decision and declared that same sex marriage should be legal in all fifty states.  The homosexual activists and many others are happy with the decision.  It seems that dramatic and sweeping changes will be coming in our nation because of this ruling.

Unfortunately, those who are celebrating this landmark decision are not listening to God’s   commandments that we find in His word.  The Scriptures are clear about homosexual behavior.  I will spare you the sermon but if you are interested to read here are some of the Scriptures that speak directly to homosexual behavior: Genesis 2:18-24; Genesis 18:1-19:29; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:18-25; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10, etc.

Even more unfortunate is that those who are celebrating same sex marriage are overlooking the reality that children need both a mom and a dad.  Let me quote just a bit from the Illinois Family Institute:  “Marriage exists for the benefit of children.  Social science research and thousands of years of history show that children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.”

Even though SCOTUS is the highest judicial body in the nation they are not the highest authority in the nation.  The almighty God is, always has been and always will be the highest authority in our nation.  Since God created us and created the institution of marriage it is necessary that we who love God also follow Him in all things.  How can SCOTUS define marriage since they did not create it?

God tells me that I should love my neighbor as myself.  I am trying to do that.  I really don’t I have to hate anybody to embrace God’s wonderful design for marriage.  I will continue to love those that disagree with me.  Sadly, some who disagree with me have called me a bigot and told me that I hate homosexuals.  That is simply not true.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision this in part is the statement from my denominational leaders:   “We believe a biblical view of marriage involves a monogamous, covenantal relationship between a man and a woman….We pray that God will help us be examples of His truth in a world that needs to see God’s love demonstrated in word and deed more than ever.”

I am not interested in arguments or debates.  Those who favor same sex marriage have spoken loud and clear.  I simply write to let it be known that many do not agree with the logic and judgment of the highest court in our nation.  I have said what I have said to encourage those who, like me, are trying to test all things through the lens of Biblical truth.  Thank you.

Pastor Jim Buchanan, Havana Church of the Nazarene.

I suppose it’s a bit more of an anecdote than a commentary. Twenty-two years ago and it seems like last week.

Isn’t that something old farts say?

The aftermath from the previous night’s whirlwind revelry had become all too familiar. Friends had come and friends had gone. My tiny, one bedroom apartment in Thornton, Colorado, was, once again, strewn with empty beer bottles and soggy cigarette butts that lay decomposing in makeshift ashtray tombs.

The pungent pong of stale beer and cheap tobacco turned my stomach as I, having just roused at the crack of noon and suffering the hangover of all hangovers, staggered the short distance from my lonely bedroom to my lonelier kitchenette.

My daily refrigerator inventory cataloged exactly one large Domino’s Pizza box, containing exactly one half-eaten piece of stale pepperoni, and a three-quarters-empty Coors Party Ball. The sink was full of foul-smelling dishes, and the trash can had flies.

Yes, it was pitiful.

Yes, I was pitiful.

My high school sweetheart and wife of nearly five years, you see, had kicked me out and filed for divorce a few months earlier saying that I’d never amount to anything. At the moment, her words seemed a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I was crushed.

So this was rock bottom. The day, which yet again wore into night with fast food and old Bonanza reruns, would end like all the rest. Where were my car keys? As I searched in preparation for another trip to the liquor store, I made my way to my bedroom and opened my nightstand drawer. I found there, instead, my old dusty Bible. I suppose it was “desperate times” and all that, but, for whatever reason, I picked it up, brushed it off and began to read.

I’ve experienced, in my life, a handful of what I would call miracles. While I’ve had a few supernatural experiences that, for the outsider looking in, might be thought more profound, it was on this day that I experienced the miracle most influential to the course of my life – defined it, in fact.

I had been raised in a Christian home and, as far as I knew, “accepted Christ” at a young age. Still, on this particular night as I, the consummate “prodigal son,” randomly thumbed through the Holy Scriptures and read – the words literally leapt off the page. No, literally – certain words rose just above the page. I don’t even recall what specific passages I was reading, but things I had never before seen and words I had never before understood connected with my soul. The undeniable reality of the existence of God and the deity of Christ for the first time in my life became, in an instant and with crystal clarity, known to me in a way that I could never, ever again deny.

“This is truth!” I yelled aloud. “It’s all true! It’s real!”

I wept, overwhelmed with what I can only describe as sorrowful joy.

From that point on, my life changed. It wasn’t overnight. I still had bad habits and hang ups that, in partnership with Christ, I had to shake loose. I still do. Who doesn’t?

Even so, and tracking back from right now to then, it was on that night, at that very moment, that God’s destiny for my life – a destiny He mapped out before the beginning of time – finally took root.

Christ and Christ alone can satisfy.

Seventeenth-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal once wrote, “What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”

Some have come to call Pascal’s “infinite abyss” a “God-shaped hole.” We all have (or once had) this God-shaped hole, this void in our soul, that can be filled alone with, and satisfied by, the presence of the Holy Spirit – by Christ Jesus.

Attempts to fill this void in my own life with womanizing and hard-partying were found wanting, woefully, and the more I tried to fill it with these and other worldly items, the emptier and more restless I became. As Saint Augustine reflected, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.”

But I promised you the meaning of life.

Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die” (John 11:25).

Jesus is the life. We are all perishing in the flesh. We all die. But we can all have Life eternal. We can have eternal Life, even in this life.

It’s a hard truth, but it’s not a complicated one. Whether you’re an atheist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist or whether you identify by some other man-made religion or non-religion, until you fill the God-shaped hole in your soul with Christ Jesus, you will find no rest.

“Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” (John 14:6).

No one.

Except through Him.

Jesus is the meaning of life.

By Phillip Holmes

Less than a week ago, a video was released that provided damning evidence that Planned Parenthood was selling the body parts of infant corpses. Christians immediately took to social media calling Planned Parenthood actions “inhumane” and “barbaric.” Many demanded that the government defund the organization and others insisted that they be shut down.

Christians should continue to leverage their influence online to expose the atrocities taking place inside an organization that makes profit by murdering innocents and traffics their body parts under the guise of women’s rights. But that’s not all we should do.

It’s one thing to protest external problems like Planned Parenthood for what it truly is — a baby-murdering machine. It’s another to look internally and ask how we can protest with our lives in faithful and tangible ways. Protesting online is easy, but protesting with our lives will demand more of us.

Whether you’re single or married, young or old, we can all do something for the sake of the defenseless unborn and glorious truth of what we believe. What can we do?

       1. Love Children

More and more, America is becoming a country that loves children less and less. We see them as a ball-and-chain that slows us down in our pursuit of the American dream. Even in the church, Christian couples get strange looks when they say they want to have a lot of kids. Some will even discourage them. “That will change after you’ve had a kid or two.” This response shouldn’t be.

The Bible is overwhelmingly positive in its language about children. “Children are a heritage from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). When teaching his disciples, Jesus uses an illustration of the joy of a mother delivering her baby (John 16:21). Our words and actions should reflect the heart and values of Scripture. The Bible is the heart and values of God, after all.

All Christians should be known as people who love children because we have been graciously loved by a Father. Our love for and joy in children should be evident and contagious, winsomely put on display for the whole world to witness and, Lord willing, want for themselves.

       2. Have More Children

My pastor recently said, “The way to outlast an ideology that’s for naturalism, same-sex marriage, and abortion is to pretty much be anything but that, and have kids.” I couldn’t agree more with this statement. Because we love children and believe they are a blessing from God, able, married couples should have more children. Our desire to build families full of expensive, inconvenient, and precious little boys and girls should powerfully set us apart from the rest of the world.

Now, one of the biggest obstacles to having more children is the financial responsibility. It’s a legitimate concern. Every couple should stay close to the Scriptures and pray about priorities. I think we’re sometimes guilty, though, of being poor stewards of our resources and running away from the sacrifices involved in parenting.

Children are a worthy and eternal investment. “Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!” (Psalm 127:5). This word “blessed” also means happy. I hope to be cared for by my children in old age and surrounded by a lot of grandchildren. They are a great blessing and should make us very happy. You’d be hard-pressed to find a grandparent with a lot of children regretting their decision. The Bible promises that children can be a gift that keeps on giving — so have them. A large family reflects God’s family to an intentionally barren society.

       3. Adopt Children

Last winter, my wife and I lost our first child when she miscarried at nine weeks. This experience was painful for both of us, and many couples experience it. I’m aware that there are many couples who want children (or more children), but are unable to have them. I would encourage these couples (and those that can have children) to consider adoption.

Adoption is a beautiful way to put our theology to action. The Scriptures remind us of our adoption through Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:5). Now we are viewed as blood-bought, secure, beloved sons and daughters of God our Father. We’re no longer slaves, but sons and heirs through God (Galatians 4:4–7).

Many Christian couples have never considered adoption. I would encourage you to initiate these conversations in your home and with your church family. Pray consistently, and ask if God might have you adopt. Adoption screams to our society that children are wanted and loved.

       4. Instruct Children

Scripture commands us to “train up a child in the way he should go” and to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4). We know that there is nothing we can do to guarantee the salvation of our child. Salvation belongs to the Lord. But this truth shouldn’t make us passive in our instruction, nor in the decisions we make about their upbringing and education. The Bible condemns this behavior and warns us that we should never neglect the discipline of our children (Proverbs 23:13–14; 13:24).

As society becomes increasingly godless, parents should be ready to make hard choices about education. Education is never religiously neutral. It’s impossible. Some worldview is at the foundation of every educational institution, program, or curriculum. Few will argue that government schools today even remotely reflect a Christian worldview. Among other ideas contrary to the Bible, government schools will likely teach your children that so-called “same-sex marriage” is legitimate, natural, and courageous, or that a baby boy or girl in the womb is not yet human.

Well-meaning Christians are hesitant to pull out of public schools because they see such community as an opportunity for ministry, a rare chance to be “in the world, but not of it.” This perspective assumes that there are not better options to give our children a full Christian education while at the same time still loving our neighbors.

We need Christians to train their children and love their neighbors well. I think churches should consider building affordable schools for their community. Educating our families and communities guards the minds of our little ones, shows mercy to our neighbors, and shapes future generations of decision-makers in the family and in society. Building Christian schools provides opportunities to more holistically disciple a pregnant teenager considering an abortion.

Education will inevitably lead to change, for good or for bad. We should be thinking, praying, planning, and investing in how to teach children to think and feel and act for the glory of God.

       5. Give for Children

Much of what I’ve mentioned so far requires resources — gross amounts of time and money. You may be in a stage or place in life in which most of the above is no longer an option, but you love children and want to help. Consider giving. Give your time. Give your money. Give what you can to families, organizations, and church funds seeking to love, serve, and teach children.

This investment could include babysitting for a couple, or helping a larger family a few times a week by changing diapers and cleaning. You could give to an organization that provides resources for families that have special needs children. You could support agencies that promote or facilitate adoptions, or come alongside families walking through the challenges of adoption. You could even talk to your church leader about building a team of teachers and donors to start an affordable Christian school that could serve the church and the community. Or if your community already has such a school, you could apply for a job, volunteer, or write them a check.

When the world sees us love little ones in these ways, they will be forcefully and beautifully confronted with the love of God himself. These are the fruits — the offspring — of his adopting love for sinners, welcoming them and all their sin into his family forever. Few things tell the story of the gospel more clearly and more tangibly than our passionate, persistent love for the young and defenseless, those our nation so cavalierly and shockingly discard.

Continue to protest online, but make sure your lifestyle reflects your words.

Original article can be found on desiringgod.com

It’s by design. As I, and others, have repeatedly warned, the establishment of so-called “gay marriage” as a newfangled federal “right,” and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simply cannot coexist in harmony. Things diametrically at odds cannot possibly occupy, with any coherence, the same time and space.

The secular left is tripping over itself right now to prove my point. In the wake of last month’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion – an opinion that somehow divined a top secret “constitutional right” for Patrick Henry to “marry” Henry Patrick – liberals are now demanding, as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito predicted, that Christian university’s immediately abandon recognition of, and obedience to, God’s unequivocal natural sexual order, and adopt, instead, the new pagan orthodoxy.

In a July 14 article in The Atlantic headlined, “Gay Marriage and the Future of Evangelical Colleges,” University of Tampa professor David R. Wheeler asks, “Now that same-sex couples have the right to wed, will higher-ed institutions that condemn LGBT students still be eligible for federal funding?”

Wheeler is not alone in asking. “As cultural evolution on the issue of LGBT rights continues to accelerate, it’s inevitable that some Americans will start asking hard questions about whether it makes sense to allocate scarce public resources to institutions that are not only anti-gay, but proud of it,” opines anti-Christian bigot Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “For starters, can federally supported educational institutions bar married same-sex couples from living together in student housing? I doubt it,” he adds.

In other words, Christian universities must together embrace and facilitate homosexual sin, or lose, at once, both tax-exempt status and access to all students who choose to fund their education via federal loans and grants (which is most of them).

This presents quite a conundrum. It’s also a test. Christian universities must either obey God, disobey man and suffer unsavory temporal consequences, or obey man, sell their souls for mammon and suffer a-little-more-than-unsavory eternal consequence.

This is where faith comes in.

German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a man who faced the gallows for faithfully opposing the Nazi Holocaust. He once wrote, “For faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.”

It’s really not that complicated. The Christian university that chooses the path of least resistance and conforms to the world – that is, disobeys God and adopts the world’s morally relative (read: unbiblical) standards (or lack thereof) on sex and sexuality – immediately becomes at enmity with God. The Christian university that intentionally turns a blind eye to sexual immorality of any kind, or otherwise allows and recognizes sin-based “same-sex marriage,” ceases to be a Christian university and, instead, becomes an apostate university – a university better identified as “Christian in name only.”

As Jesus admonished, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).

Indeed, on the question of whether Christian universities will capitulate on sodomy-based “marriage,” the path of least resistance is the broad road that stems from the wide gate and leads to destruction.

By way of example, and to its shame, formerly Christian Baylor University, located in Waco, Texas, has chosen the path of least resistance. This hits especially close to home for me. I was born in Waco and my parents both attended Baylor. Two of my uncles graduated from Baylor Law, and my grandfather, J. Dell Barber, was a Baylor benefactor. In fact, he has a room in the law school named after him and, before he died, set up the Bertha J. Barber memorial scholarship fund in honor of my great grandmother.

Reports Baptist News Global: “Baptist-affiliated Baylor University has quietly removed a ban on ‘homosexual acts’ from its sexual conduct code. …”

“Lori Fogleman, assistant vice president for media communications, said the change is part of an ongoing review ‘to ensure that the university has the necessary policies and processes in place to comply with the many legal and ethical mandates to which universities are subject as institutions.’ She said a review of the sexual conduct policy was contemplated for a couple of years, because officials didn’t believe the language in the old policy ‘reflected Baylor’s caring community.’”

And so, under Baylor University’s new apostasy, it is somehow “caring” to affirm students, faculty and staff in a mortal sin that, in the absence of repentance, will lead them to eternal separation from God – to destruction.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

It breaks my heart to be so closely affiliated with a Christian university that has so lost its way.

A colleague of mine once praised yet another for being a person who “applies biblical ethics in ways both faithful and nuanced, both orthodox and relevant.” I’m not exactly sure what that means, but, in my experience, and in the context of biblical exegesis, the term “nuanced” is usually invoked to rationalize some unbiblical behavior or otherwise cave on some fixed biblical principle.

“Nuance” is the bucket of dirt used to muddy crystal clear living waters.

And how does the faithful, Bible-believing Christian remain “both orthodox and relevant”? How can a Christian be both in the world and of the world? To the world, biblical orthodoxy is, in every way imaginable, irrelevant. Biblical orthodoxy represents absolute truth, who is Christ, and the world denies that Truth.

It hates Him in fact.

Pastor Brian Houston, founder of the popular Hillsong movement, recently said, “It can be challenging for churches to stay relevant. … Many mainstream churches upheld what they would believe is the long established view of what the Bible says about homosexuality. But the world has changed around and about them. …

“So the world’s changing and we want to stay relevant as a church,” he continued. “So that’s a vexing thing. You think, ‘How do we not become a pariah?’”

Pastor Houston, respectfully, you have it exactly backwards. We, as Christians, are obliged to become pariahs. We must pick up our cross and follow Christ, the ultimate pariah – the one and only God-man who was such a pariah, in fact, that he was scourged, mocked, spat upon and tortured to death on a tree so that all who are willing to become pariahs right along with him, might have eternal life.

No, to remain faithful, Christian universities must abandon efforts to become “nuanced” and “relevant.”

It’s a fool’s errand.

If Christian universities wish to remain faithful, they must, instead, become pariahs.

They must obey God.

If you missed our Islam in America with Dr. Erwin Lutzer forum on May 7th in Medinah, you’ll be pleased to know it will be aired on on Channel 138 TLN (Comcast & Xfinity) tonight and on August 6th at 9:00 PM.

The Islam in America DVD is now available for a suggested donation of $15. Order the DVD by clicking HERE. Show it at your church or to a group in your home or give it away. You can also call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.

Watch the trailer HERE.

By Fay Voshell

The extremists of the LGBT movement display all the characteristics of a cult-like religion, including opposing critical thinking, severely penalizing any opposition, demanding complete and unwavering acceptance of its doctrines, putting loyalty to the cult above family and any other institution, including the Church, disallowing any member the right to change one’s mind and leave orseek change without dire consequences, as well as essentially demanding complete capitulation of conscience of doubtful converts.

Just as importantly, the LGBT movement deals with ultimate questions belonging to theology. The movement holds to theological doctrines concerning the nature of the human being, sexual identity and behavior, the definition of marriage, the family and the place of children, the role of government, and the transformation of traditional American institutions and documents adhering to Christian principles, particularly the Church — and the US Constitution. It has set itself up as a new sexual orthodoxy that usurps the place of orthodox Christianity and Judaism.

In brief, the establishment of the new state orthodoxy, the genesis of which can be found in ancient pagan phallic cults, is the culmination of several generations of efforts to displace Christianity and Judaism in America. Now that the modern sexual creed is woven into the very fabric of the executive and judicial branches, both will accelerate attempts to promulgate the sex cult, increasingly targeting Orthodox Christians and Jews.

As noted, the LGBT movement is characterized by severe and draconian reductionism.  Only one aspect of what it means to be human – sexuality — is emphasized.

Reductionism is always tyranny’s handmaiden.  People are much more easily categorized and then punished when they are seen through only one prism or measured by only one characteristic such as race or sexual proclivities.  Dissenters are far more readily judged to condemnation by only “incorrect” belief. That is why tyrannical ideologues take one or two favorite doctrines deemed as infallibly central to their power plays, separate people out according to belief or disbelief in those tenets, and then punish or completely eliminate any who oppose them.

The litmus test of the new creed can be race, a single ideological tenet, or the equivalent of a password. “Are you more than 50% Jewish?”  “Do you believe in Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book?”  “Stomp on this image of Christ.”

No? You are anti-government and a threat to civil society. Justified oppression awaits you.

The new state sanctioned cult also has its litmus tests.

“Will you or will you not bake a cake for our gay wedding and thus participate in a service of a faith that is in diametrically opposed to your own beliefs?”  No?  You are fined $135,000 and must obey a gag order.

“You object to having your sixth grade daughter fitted with an IUD?”  You must adhere to a strange morality diametrically opposed to the tenets of our cult.  You are a Christian? Your parental rights and your consciences are overruled by what your little girl and we choose.

“You don’t want your children to receive lessons on anal sex and incest?  You object to your school’s goal to teach students about homosexual, bisexual, and transgender identity?”  You probably should be visited by Social Services.

Very importantly, the new passwords and litmus tests of the new American state religion will make it relatively easy for a tyrannous United States government to persecute and prosecute the Christian Church, raiding it for its wealth by taxationand eventually seizing its assets, much as Henry VIII confiscated the wealth of the monasteries when he made himself the supreme head of the Church of England.

All that has to be done is to apply the sex cult’s litmus test to pastors and the congregants: “Will you marry same sex couples?” An answer in the negative will automatically make the church and every member within an enemy of the state and therefore worthy of exploitation of assets and, ultimately, complete destruction.

Hyperbole?  Scarcely.

History is replete with efforts to make the gods of the state ascendant and without competition, complete with forced compliance to new mores, dictates and “rights,” sexual and/or otherwise.  The question of “Will you marry same sex couples” amounts to the older, perennial challenge to dissidents of any era: “Will you bow down and worship Caesar?”

Caesar has many guises by which he has time and again attempted to enter and conquer the sacred temple, bringing his statues and religion with him.  So there is nothing new in the attempt of the LGBT movement to insert the doctrine of gay marriage as a scared rite within the Christian Church, forcing the Church to alter one of its most sacred ceremonies in order the liturgy and doctrines be retrofitted to the new dogma.

After all, Jews of the Maccabaen era found out just how far Caesar would go when Antiochus IV decided to destroy them and their religion, supplanting Judaism with Greek culture, including Greek mores and Greek gods.  As Bible History Online relates:

“The most radical Hellenizers felt that things were not moving fast enough…. It was now the goal that Judaism was to be destroyed. In the mind of Antiochus to be un-Hellenized was stiff-necked nonsense. If Judaism stood in the way then Judaism was to be destroyed so he gave the orders.

“The Syrian army marched into Jerusalem and many of the people were killed and others escaped to the hills…Orders were given: NO Sabbath, NO Holy Days, and NO Circumcision. A Statue of Zeus/Antiochus was placed in the Temple above the altar. The most detestable animals (the pig) were brought and sacrificed on the altar.”

The outrages of Antiochus IV would be repeated by Caligula, who proclaimed himself a god.  He sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to place his statue in the very Temple of the Jews.  Petronius was to kill all who opposed the emperor’s decrees.

In modern times, Caesar — in the guise of fascism, communism, Islamism and progressivism — has demanded and is demanding Christians and others who will not worship the contemporary gods of their particular religious movement bow down and worship the gods of the State or be destroyed.

Once again, but this time here in America, the whole culture is to be fundamentally transformed by worship of Caesar’s gods.  Violence toward dissenters is and will be the inevitable result.

Need we look far for contemporary examples of how Caesar’s newly established sex cult demands all bow down and worship?  Lifesite News reports:

“Businesses that disagree with gay marriage are being forced to shut down. Churches in Denmark have been ordered to perform gay weddings. Our tax dollars are used to fund Pride Parades that are starting to look like public orgies. The Sexual Revolutionaries are not, for the most part, about living and let live—only look at the Trinity Western University case.  They are about compulsory acceptance. Sexual rights, in other words, take precedence over all other rights.”

Bryan Fischer warns American Christians may soon be disqualified from holding public office:

“Mark my words on this. The ultimate outcome of this unconscionable act is that one day, before too long; it will be officially illegal for Christians to hold public office in the United States.

“How will this happen? It’s simple. Every holder of public office takes a solemn and sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Liberals will argue that since June 26, 2015, our Constitution has been amended to include the right to marriage based on the infamous crime against nature.

“The left will argue that if an individual is not prepared to swear that they wholeheartedly support sodomy-based marriage, they have no right at all even to take the oath of office. An individual’s opposition to same-sex marriage will be (falsely) interpreted as opposition to the Constitution itself.”

It is clear that just as in the days of the hellenization of the Jews, just as in the days of the Caesars and all the rest of history’s tyrants, the battle lines are being drawn.  The Christian Church will be required to stand for orthodoxy or be reduced to exile and ultimately total irrelevance.

But can Christians fight, even when in exile?

The answer to that question is, “Yes.”  They must.

The Church can remember it is called to resist earthly authorities when those authorities exceed their God-ordained limits.  Civil disobedience is a means of resistance against those who would force the Church to go against its conscience.

In Philadelphia, Liam Goligher, the pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, which the author regularly attends, has written about Tenth Presbyterian’s response to the SCOTUS decision:

“We believe that God will use this challenge to purify his church in the world. There are already conversations afoot to take away our non-profit status, which will undoubtedly have a huge effect on our work. Already there are threats that if we oppose the ruling of the Supreme Court we will be held guilty of hate speech. So be it. Our consciences are tied to the Word of God and we must stand there.”

In so writing, Dr. Goligher and others  — Franklin Graham among them– standing against the predations of the State against Christian orthodoxy and conscience, echo the words of Martin Luther, who when called on to recant his “heretical” position, said:

“Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen.”

All Christians who adhere to orthodoxy and to their consciences, be they pastors, theologians or congregants, will find an example in the apostle Peter.  When he was told to shut up and stop preaching and standing for the truths of Christianity, Peter the Rock said, “We must obey God rather than men.”

At one time Christians in America were free to say, “We must obey God rather than men.”  They were even free to put into practice the belief “We must obey God rather than men.” There was great glory in that belief.  There were great deeds and great reforms stemming from it, as the abolition and civil rights movements were to reveal.

Now, under increasing duress from the State concerning religious liberty, Christians must stand and say it again and again and again:

“We must obey God rather than men.”

---

This article was originally published at www.americanthinker.com

Ever notice how the secular left conveniently omits the fact that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a devout Christian minister?

While, historically, there have certainly been apostate “Christians” who, in the name of Christ, have abused and taken out of context certain biblical passages to support slavery, segregation, racism and other evils – it has been, without fail, true Christians, that is, Bible-believing Christians of every race, color and creed, who have led the charge in defense of all legitimate human (and civil) rights.

The Rev. King was one such Christian, and though he and other Christian leaders have, no doubt, welcomed aid and support from honorable and like-minded secularists over the centuries, it was and remains Christians – Bible-believing brothers and sisters like MLK, William Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, et. al. – who have, indisputably, embodied the most effective and well-known of all humanitarian and civil rights activists.

Even so, in recent decades, sadly, and in what amounts to a sort of soft racism, a mostly white, hard-left movement of secular extremists has managed to hijack MLK’s Christian legacy and invoke his character-based “dream” to advance their own anti-Christian agenda and behavior-based nightmare. I am referring, of course, to homosexual activism (i.e., the push for so-called “gay marriage” and “gay rights”), which, by its very nature, and unlike MLK’s “dream,” is a wholly counter-biblical endeavor.

On all issues, particularly issues relating to morality and human rights, God’s word is the plumb line by which all truth is measured. “The moral law or the law of God,” as MLK called it, was, in fact, his exclusive guidepost and primary motivation. From a biblical standpoint, racism is objectively immoral, and Rev. King understood this – so he spent his entire life, gave his life in fact, working to secure civil and human rights for racial minorities.

Similarly, from a biblical standpoint, homosexual behavior, or “the sin of Sodom” as it’s oft referred, is likewise objectively immoral (along with its oxymoronic offshoot: counterfeit “same-sex marriage”). Jesus defined marriage for us. His definition is reflected in the spiritual, biological and in-every-other-way-self-evident order of His divinely defined design. “‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate’” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Moreover, the very thing that defines “gay marriage,” the biologically and spiritually disordered act of same-sex sodomy, is, likewise, a counterfeit. It mocks God’s design for natural sexual intercourse.

Indeed, the Bible, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, unambiguously condemns as “vile affections,” as sin rising to the level of “an abomination,” all same-sex sexual conduct, be it, “loving, monogamous and committed,” or otherwise.

Homosexuality is mock sexuality.

And “gay marriage” is mock marriage.

So-called “gay rights” represent nothing more than moral wrongs. Homosexual sin has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights and, based upon what we know of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., he would have wholeheartedly agreed. While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear.

But don’t take my word for it. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself. In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Rev. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here’s the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

Neither would he have supported same-sex “marriage.”

To be sure, in 2005 Rev. King’s daughter, Bernice King, led a march to her father’s graveside in support of a constitutional amendment to defend natural marriage. Sharing his position on the issue, she later said that her famous father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that MLK, a man of the Bible, would have thrown his weight behind a political movement hell-bent on justifying unbiblical sexual appetites and behaviors that he properly identified as “a problem” demanding “a solution” – a “type of feeling” that requires “careful attention,” up to and including “see[ing] a good psychiatrist.”

No, MLK was a Christian minister who both embraced and articulated the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” model on homosexuality. Every Christian should follow his lead. After all, it is the lead set by Christ Himself.

And so, how would MLK have responded to the Supreme Court’s recent opinion presuming to invent a “constitutional right” to sodomy-based “marriage”?

It’s clear how he would have responded.

In his “letter from the Birmingham jail,” Rev. King famously declared, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he explained. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

As it was with the national sin of systemic racism, there can be few things more “out of harmony with the moral law” than the inherently immoral notion of sodomy-based “marriage.”

And so the good reverend would have opposed it.

Quite likely, he would have led the charge against it.