It’s that bustling time between Thanksgiving and Christmas (Christ’s Mass), our nationally recognized and congressionally “established” birthday celebration for Jesus, the sovereign Lord of all mankind. Now is a valuable opportunity to reflect upon our nation’s past, present and future (our true past, not the historically revised version propagated by secular-”progressives”).

First, for the public school-educated: No, Thanksgiving was not about high-fiving the Indians for corn on the cob. In his 1789 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, George Washington made abundantly clear exactly Whom America should thank, and why.

Washington began by declaring that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor” so that a special day might “be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country” as well as “for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.”

Oh, how times have changed.

That, while “acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God,” continued Washington, America might “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations” in a concerted effort “to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.”

You with me, Supreme Court?

Now, lest there be any confusion as to the identity of “the great Lord and Ruler of Nations” to Whom Washington referred, President John Adams, Washington’s successor, ordered, in 1799, a day of “solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer,” wherein he proclaimed that Americans should, “on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private: That they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that, through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come.”

“Separation of church and state”?

Not so much.

I know. Calm down, atheists. It wasn’t a theocratic dictate requiring that you bow your knee before Jesus. Christians don’t force conversion. After all, contrary to Barack Hussein Obama’s claim otherwise, we are not a “Muslim country” – yet. It was just a firm suggestion. As for bowing before Christ, God will see to that later.

Imagine if anti-Christian outfits like the ACLU or the so-called “Freedom From Religion Foundation” (FFRF) had been around back then. At a time when Americans’ freedoms were protected under an authentic First Amendment application, these counter-constitutionalists would have been laughed out of town (or worse) upon their first frivolous “Establishment Clause” lawsuit.

Still, George Washington’s myriad “declarations of American dependence” upon God were not all sunshine and fuzzy bunnies. Many took on a decidedly somber tone, clearly intended to warn both his patriotic contemporaries and, most especially, future generations.

America’s reluctant first chief executive sought to forestall the predictably devastating consequences of a national break from America’s Judeo-Christian moorings.

In fact, during his Farewell Address, Washington spoke of exactly the kind of subversive, anti-theist provocateurs who make up the aforementioned ACLU, FFRF, et al. He called them unpatriotic. He underscored the critical role religion and morality play to our national survival and, though he did not specifically identify them as such, warned of secular-”progressives” like Barack Obama – a man who, exposed as a serial liar, would later bring great shame upon the noble office Washington first held.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,” declared Washington, “Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … [R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Regrettably, Washington’s parting words exemplify, to a great extent, the current state of affairs in the very government he helped to bring about.

“Let it simply be asked,” he warned, “‘where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”

Where indeed? Not only have our courts of justice abandoned any “sense of religious obligation,” they increasingly seek to subvert “we the people’s” very freedom to exercise such obligation.

Is it any wonder, then, that, with a government that weaponizes the IRS, brushes off the gross moral failings of our public servants and facilitates the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of its most vulnerable citizens – security for property, reputation and life has disappeared?

Continued Washington: “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

That “necessary spring” of “virtue and morality” has run dry. A “constitutional right” for sodomy-based “marriage”? – a sin both Washington and the criminal codes called an “infamous crime”? Seriously? A government mandate that Christians fund your abortion homicide, despite a non-negotiable biblical command to do no such thing? Are you kidding?

The foundation has fractured. The fabric has frayed.

In 1788, eight years prior to his Farewell Address, Washington wrote: “[T]he [federal] government … can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.”

We are in danger. As our national virtue melts away, it strains credulity to deny that we are entering, as Washington warned, a dark era of American despotism. Like water to the gulch, such despotism pervades in the absence of religion and morality.

And as history has shown, the despotic nation is not long for the world.

The American Family Association is calling for a limited one-month boycott of Radio Shack over the company’s censorship of the word “Christmas.”

For years, Radio Shack has refused to use the word Christmas on its website, in television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions, despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas and in spite of repeated requests from AFA to do the same.

Want proof? Go to www.radioshack.com and type “Christmas” in the search bar. As of today, the website brings up zero results.

At Radio Shack, you’ll find “holiday” deals, “holiday” kickoff, “holiday” cash and a “holiday” gift guide, but you won’t find “Christmas” anywhere.

Radio Shack is censoring the word Christmas, pure and simple. Yet the company wants all the people who celebrate Christmas to do their shopping at its stores.

Until Radio Shack proves it recognizes Christmas by using it in their newspaper, radio and television advertising or in-store signage, the boycott will be promoted throughout this Christmas season.

AFA has successfully influenced almost all of the nation’s largest retailers to embrace the use of Christmas in their advertising. But at Radio Shack, it’s “Bah, Humbug!”

TAKE ACTION

Sign the Boycott Radio Shack Pledge. AFA will regularly update Radio Shack on how many people have signed the pledge.

Follow up with a phone call. Call the corporate office at 817-415-3011, option 0, and let them know you are serious about taking your business elsewhere.

Facebook Users: Leave a comment on Radio Shack’s Facebook page for an immediate impact that will get their attention.

We recommend you call your local store manager and politely let him know you won’t be shopping his store. Ask him to pass your comments along to the corporate office.

Here is an amazing Thanksgiving Day Proclamation for November 17, 1791 from the Declaration of Independence signer with the big name – Governor John Hancock.   ( If a governor said this today, he or would be impeached, mocked, or forced by the ACLU to apologize.  Still, proclamations like this were quite common in the early years of our republic.)

In consideration of the many undeserved Blessings conferred upon us by GOD, the Father of all Mercies; it becomes us no only in our private and usual devotion, to express our obligations to Him, as well as our dependence upon Him; but also specially to set a part a Day to be employed for this great and important Purpose:

I HAVE therefore thought fit to appoint, and by the advice and consent of the Council, do hereby accordingly appoint, THURSDAY, the seventeenth of November next, to be observed as a Day of Public THANKSGIVING and PRAISE, throughout this Commonwealth:—Hereby calling upon Ministers and People of every denomination, to assemble on the said Day—and in the name of the Great Mediator, devoutly and sincerely offer to Almighty God, the gratitude of our Hearts, for all his goodness towards us; more especially in that HE has been pleased to continue to us so a great a measure of Health—to cause the Earth plentifully to yield her increase, so that we are supplied with the Necessaries, and the Comforts of Life—to prosper our Merchandise and Fishery—And above all, not only to continue to us the enjoyment of our civil Rights and Liberties; but the great and most important Blessing, the Gospel of Jesus Christ: And together with our cordial acknowledgments, I do earnestly recommend, that we may join the penitent confession of our Sins, and implore the further continuance of the Divine Protection, and Blessings of Heaven upon this People; especially that He would be graciously pleased to direct, and prosper the Administration of the Federal Government, and of this, and the other States in the Union—to afford Him further Smiles on our Agriculture and Fisheries, Commerce and Manufactures—To prosper our University and all Seminaries of Learning—To bless the virtuously struggling for the Rights of Men—so that universal Happiness may be Allies of the United States, and to afford his Almighty Aid to all People, who are established in the World; that all may bow to the Scepter of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the whole Earth be filled with his Glory.

And I do also earnestly recommend to the good People of this Commonwealth, to abstain from all servile Labor and Recreation, inconsistent with the solemnity of the said day.
 
Given at the Council-Chamber, in Boston, the fifth Day of October, in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-One, and in the sixteenth Year of the Independence of the United States of America.

JOHN HANCOCK.
     By his Excellency’s Command, JOHN AVERY, jun. Sec’y
 
     GOD save the Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS!!

Both the mainstream and Christian press have reported that youth are fleeing Protestant Christian churches, and rapidly. Not true. In fact, young people are not leaving the church—or at least some churches. The Pew Forum commented in their U.S. Religious Landscape Survey that the “proportion of the population identifying with large mainline Protestant denominations has declined significantly in recent decades, while the proportion of Protestants identifying with the large evangelical denominations has increased.”

The numbers show a considerable 2.20 percent decline for the mainlines and a fractional 0.60 percent increase for Evangelical churches. These shifts in real numbers are quite notable, enough to strike real concern in some church leaders and hearty alleluias in others. It suggests that young people respond positively to a call to substantive discipleship and scriptural study. They are looking for something that calls them to be radically different.

There’s also a critical difference when considering the nature of those who are leaving the church altogether. It’s not surprising how this shakes out, but really quite simple. When considering those who do leave the faith in young adulthood as a category, only 11 percent said they had a strong, meaningful faith as a child. A whopping 89 percent said they did not. Therefore, two conclusions:

1) One doesn’t typically hang onto what they never really had.
2) Parents who are teaching and practicing for their children a meaningful, part-of-everyday-life faith are not wasting their time.

Popular doom and gloom media reports also do not make a distinction between young people leaving the church and young people simply converting to other churches. Young adults who are merely moving from one faith tradition to another, such as from Lutheran to Presbyterian, or Anglican to Catholic, are simply counted among the “leaving.” Professor Byron Johnson from Baylor’s Institute for Studies on Religion confirms this, “Switching is not an indication that Americans have abandoned or lost their faith, as many in the media and, unfortunately, a number of Christians would have us believe.” Changing lanes from one Christian tradition to another cannot honestly be categorized as “leaving” their faith.

Notre Dame’s Christian Smith, a world leader in this field of study, explains this reality from the reports of the young adults themselves:

Most emerging adults themselves report little change in how religious they have been in the previous five years. And those who do report change are more likely to say they have become more, not less, religious.

Considering the “nones” that we have heard so much about, there has been dramatic growth. “Nones” don’t identify with any particular faith and have increased from 3 percent in 1970 to 20 percent today. The most dramatic growth has been in the last few years, more than doubling since the 1990s.

Although the number of atheists and agnostics in the U.S. has nearly doubled since 2000, it is from a very low 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent. Most of the so-called “nones” do report some sort of faith. But they are bundling, picking, and combining only those options that appeal to their own tastes and needs. And many of them retain a somewhat meaningful faith, of the “I’m not religious, but spiritual” or “Don’t think of me as a Christian, but a follower of Christ” kind.

The finer details do reveal a very different story. So, when we hear Christians and our church leaders say things like “Well, we all know the grim numbers on how our young people are leaving the faith in droves!” we can now kindly correct them, reminding them that the truth of scripture is not the only kind of truth we have the responsibility of proclaiming.

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

The annual dedication of the Christmas crèche in Daley Plaza will take place Saturday, November 30, at noon, joining the Chicago Christmas tree and Christkindlmarket at what has come to be the hub of downtown celebrations of Christmas. This recreation of the scene of the birth of Jesus, central to the holiday, has remained at the city’s center of seasonal festivities for almost three decades.

WHAT: Daley Plaza Nativity Scene assembly and dedication

WHEN: Saturday, November 30, 2013
SET UP begins at 9 a.m. (Central) by the God Squad
DEDICATION is at 12 p.m. noon (Central)
The exhibit will remain on Daley Plaza until December 28.

WHERE: Chicago’s Daley Plaza, 50 W Washington Street, Chicago, IL
MAP: goo.gl/maps/jGQqE

WHO: Open to the public, sponsored by the Nativity Scene Committee

FEATURING:

• Christmas music, with hymn accompanied by the Santa Maria del Popolo Catholic Church bell choir 
    
• The placing of the Baby Jesus in the manger by children in attendance

“The Nativity Scene has been an annual tradition in Daley Plaza since l985 when the beautiful life-size crèche was first displayed,” said Ed O’Malley, co-chair of the Nativity Scene Committee. “This remains the sole religious expression of Christmas on a government plaza in downtown Chicago,” he added. “The God Squad, a group of volunteer tradesmen, will erect the stable and install the lighting as they have for over twenty-five years.” The volunteers will begin assembling the Nativity display at 9 a.m. Saturday.

Children in attendance will have the honor of placing the Baby Jesus in the manger, marking the continued return of the Christ child to what the Nativity Scene Committee calls, “His rightful place in the hearts of the Chicago community.”

The bell choir from Santa Maria del Popolo Catholic Church in Mundelein, Illinois, will ring in the sacred season, along with the singing of Christmas hymns.

The Nativity Scene Committee welcomes all Chicagoans and visitors to inaugurate the Christmas season at Daley Plaza. “A visit to honor the birth of Jesus is the perfect way to kick off a day of enjoying holiday decorations, shopping for gifts, and wrapping oneself in the Christmas spirit.”

The Nativity Scene will remain on Daley Plaza until December 28.

A detailed history of the Chicago Nativity Scene is available here.

Princeton University was founded in 1746 by devoutly Christian men with a devoutly Christian mission. It has “evolved” into a fortress of secular-”progressivism,” presently employing people like Bio-”Ethics” professor Peter Singer.

Whereas Princeton’s crest and motto yet declare: “Dei sub numine viget,” Latin for “Under God she flourishes,” the university, even still, permits Singer to teach young minds full of mush that it’s perfectly ethical for parents to kill their babies within a one month period after birth.

Please understand, I don’t mean to pick on Princeton. I only single-out this once-godly institution for purposes of illustration. Even today there are, no doubt, many good, God-fearing men and women among Princeton’s student body, faculty, staff and alumni.

To be sure, I might just as easily have spotlighted Harvard, Yale, Oxford or any among dozens of formerly Christian universities that, over time – and beneath the erosive slow-drip temptation to “conform to the pattern of this world” – have tragically abandoned their founding vision to train-up men and women who would “go into all the world” and champion the cause of Christ.

While such institutions of higher learning once derived their moral compass from a decidedly biblical worldview, today they aggressively foster principles that are decidedly counter-biblical (i.e., secularism, sexual relativism, a “pro-choice” culture of death, et al.).

They’ve lost true north. Their once-seaworthy biblical scholarship and worldview have become capsized. Their once-biblical code of belief has become counter-biblical dogma.

There is, mind you, another, more pointed term for “counter-biblical” and it is this: “evil.”

Scripture has much to say about the wide, “progressive” path away from truth and toward evil: “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud’” (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Scripture also admonishes, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). So-called “progressives” frequently call me evil. They also call me, among other things, irreverent.

I appreciate that.

Since, by its very nature, one’s adherence to secular-”progressivism” qualifies one as among “those who call evil good, and good evil” – and since “progressivism” reveres that which God calls evil – to call me both “evil” and “irreverent” is to do me a kindness.

Indeed, due to my very direct and sometimes Swiftian approach to speaking biblical truth to our culture, many on the left have also called me hateful, uncivil, offensive, sarcastic and a litany of other colorful adjectives not fit for print.

To which I again say, thank you very much.

I don’t share this to boast, as I am certainly none too righteous. I second Paul’s declaration that “I am the worst sinner of all,” but only share this for illustrative purposes.

Jesus tells us: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. …” (John 15:18-20)

For Christians, those times when the right people call us the wrong things are among those times we should “rejoice in our sufferings.”

Jesus commands His followers to be His hands and feet – to be salt and light in a rotting world that loves darkness (Matthew 5:13-16).

While it is true that salt preserves; in an open wound, it also burns. Today’s relativist culture is an open wound.

While it is true that light’s bright glare can be illuminating to those eager to see, light’s bright glare is also blinding to those whose eyes have become adjusted to darkness.

When the light of Christ is shined, it sends lovers of evil scurrying for the shadows.

For this reason, Christ also warned, “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22).

There are, generally speaking, two kinds of sin. There are sins of commission and there are sins of omission. From my perspective – and I think it’s the biblical perspective – we Christians commit a sin of omission if we remain passive as our culture becomes “given over to a reprobate mind.”

When we seek to be loved by the world – when we follow the Princeton model and take the wide path to “mainstream” acceptance – we abdicate our duty to “fight the good fight.”

For the time has come of which Paul warned “when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:1-7).

Indeed, we are in a spiritual war for our culture. It is a war between good and evil, and surrender is not an option. When we disengage from this “culture war,” we have effectively surrendered and, again, from my perspective, we have sinned.

So put on the armor of God, Christian pastors, laymen, churches, organizations and universities. Prepare for war.

Because to do otherwise is to disobey God. As Matthew 5:13 warns: “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”

I, for one, have no intention of being trampled underfoot. With God’s help, I will “stand firm to the end.”

And God only knows when the end will come.

Every day there’s more evidence that Judeo-Christian beliefs are no longer welcomed in the public square or in public policy discussions.  The argument is that politics is no place for religion, and religion is no place for politics.

But suffocating Judeo-Christian beliefs and rejecting Biblical principles in public policy simply rids decision-making halls of one religious worldview and replaces it with another. American influentials have embraced an anti-religious philosophy commonly known as secularism, and are moving quickly to oust religion from the public square.

Americans whose faith teaches abortion is wrong, and who follow their consciences by refusing to pay for or distribute abortifacients, are facing millions of dollars in fines if they do not succumb to state policy.

In Illinois, Catholic adoption agencies that refused to offer services to same-sex couples and hire homosexuals for staff lost a 90-year contractual agreement with the state, causing the services to shutter, needlessly setting thousands of placed children into chaos.

Illinois small business owners that refuse to open their bed and breakfasts to same sex civil union celebrations based on their religious convictions are being sued for civil rights violations.

Indeed, in every aforementioned case, the state imposed its preferred anti-religion belief system over Bible-based worldviews. In every case, constitutional First Amendment rights weighed in the balance.

Removing “God”or His principles from the public square may sound tolerant and non-combative in a modern pluralistic culture, but another belief system always fills the void.

A government that demands believers publicly ignore or reject the concept of a Sovereign God replaces the Judeo-Christian worldview with an agnostic or atheistic belief system.

Such actions make secularism America’s state religion – one that must be rejected by those faithful to God.

Ironically, America was founded over this same controversy nearly 400 years ago.

The Pilgrims left England in 1620 because the state-endorsed Anglican Church had imposed itself on non-traditional, God-seeking Pilgrims. The Pilgrims viewed the state church’s overbearing demands as religious persecution, and set out to protect themselves and their children from the ungodly influence so pervasive in 17^th Century Europe.

Religious freedom was so important to the Pilgrims, they boarded a rickety, four-deck sailboat to escape across a mysterious, dangerous ocean to find God-worshipping liberty.

The Plymouth Plantation’s Governor William Bradford explained the group’s unapologetic commitment to serving God for the sake of their progeny and their eternal welfare:

“…They cherished a great hope and inward zeal of laying good foundations, or at least of making some way towards it, for the propagation and advance of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in the remote parts of the world, even though they should be stepping stones to others in the performance of so great a work.”

Their response was admirable and inspirational, there’s no doubt.  But the Pilgrims had an opportunity to escape religious persecution, rather than suffer under its rule. That option isn’t one for most Judeo-Christian devotees in America today.  There’s no other country on Earth that can provide a similar escape from religious persecution.

So, what’s an American to do in 2013?

First, pray for God to intervene.

The Apostle Paul offers this counsel in I Timothy: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”

Then, act upon your faith. Get involved, even if it takes great courage and sacrifice.

In the Old Testament, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were thrown into a fiery furnace because they refused to bow down to King Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image.  The Lord miraculously protected them, and an official decree required the kingdom to honor their Lord. 

Then Daniel, a high-ranking official captured from Jerusalem, was thrown into a lion’s den for praying three times a day. Again the Lord protected Daniel and corrupt officials were thrown into the same lions’ den, where they perished.

But that could never happen in Illinois, and of course, not nationwide, right?

America was founded by those whose top priority was to serve God and protect religious liberty from overbearing anti-religious rulers. So much so, the freedom to practice religion is listed among those protected in the very First Amendment.

Citizens that say they are committed to their faith are no longer be able to stand on the sidelines if they want to continue to worship freely and practice their faith in their everyday lives.  

Like it or not, politics and religion in America – and in Illinois – have now become inseparable.

Click HERE to make a tax-deductible donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE for information about the Oct. 23rd Defend Marriage Lobby Day.

If I said something like “I wish we still had segregation,” or “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote,” you would probably be offended. And rightly so. But why?

Would you be offended because you understand the context of my words and recognize the inherent harm they convey? Or would you be offended because society has decided that some things should simply be labeled as “offensive”?

The difference is important.

We once lived in a free society where people were allowed to “agree to disagree” on all sorts of topics; and did so in a civil, respectful manner. It’s called tolerance. But the word has been hi-jacked to mean “affirmation and acceptance of a politically correct view or position.” Consequently people don’t know how to actually be tolerant anymore. The ability to have civil discourse on topics while respecting the right of people to disagree with your position has been lost. Also predictably, certain views are expected to be tolerated while it is acceptable to be intolerant of others.

For example, it is perfectly acceptable to be intolerant of a cross being in a public place, funded by tax dollars, for any reason at all. A good example is the 9/11 memorial where a display of steel from the rubble in the shape of a cross is being protested. This is a publicly funded memorial and no vestige of religion should be present, some say. However, when Christians and other people of faith protested a publicly funded “art exhibit” featuring a cross submerged in urine, they were told to tolerate it as free speech.

So what exactly is the difference between two crosses that are publicly funded being displayed in public? Simply this, one elevates the religious faith of certain people while the other mocks that faith. Society has decided that elevating faith is detrimental to those of other faiths or those with no faith at all, so it cannot be allowed. Society has also determined that those of other faiths or with no faith are allowed to be “offended” by such displays. But mocking faith is permitted because it is free speech and protected by the Constitution. (Unless you mock Islam, in which case Muslims are allowed to be offended and the mocking is now considered wrong.)

No, it doesn’t make any sense at all. Yes, it is wildly hypocritical. And yet the reality of this cannot be denied as we see more and more cases of Christianity being torn down by people claiming to be offended while those mocking our faith are protected and encouraged.

Joe Infranco, writing at Alliance Defending Freedom, says of people who suffer from selective moral offense:

“Should these people have a Constitutional right not to be offended? If so, why is it superior to my offense over a taxpayer-funded cross soaking in urine? (Apparently a cross may receive government money so long as fashionable artists are mocking it.) We have been sold a bill of goods that mere offense should be a special exception when religious expression is made in public.” 

The mind-numbing part of it all is that the people who seem to be most offended want others to acquiesce to their demands, while refusing to even admit that they can offend others. So while atheists scream about being offended a cross on public land, they can’t even see that others are offended by the lack of crosses on public land. As homosexuals yell about being offended by being asked not to publicly display their sexuality, they can’t even comprehend that others are offended when they do display their sexuality. As abortion advocates turn blue arguing that they are offended at the lack of “choice” over their bodies, they can’t even entertain the thought that others are offended by killing unborn children. 

 It’s a special breed of absurdity that seems to come from years of ingesting liberal rhetoric which renders one incapable of critical or objective thought; not to mention the side-effect of narcissism which renders one unable tolerate any other view but their own.

But the question Joe Infranco asked, that bears conversation is, do we have the right a constitutional right to not be offended? Is it even plausible that we can live our life without being offended in any way? If so then the word tolerance will have been eliminated from our society because its very presence implies a difference of opinion. But if there is no offense at all it surely means we have all come to agree absolutely on everything.

 Joe Backholm, writing for the Family Policy institute of Washington agrees that freedom used to have room for disagreement:

Freedom…is the right to do and say things other people disagree with. While a belief in individual rights used to be the hallmark of liberalism, it has since been replaced by a commitment to amorphous concepts like ‘equality’ and ending ‘discrimination’. While they never define those terms in a way they could be held accountable for, what is obvious is that their pursuit of those values leaves no room for people to disagree.  After all, how can we have a tolerant world if people are allowed to do things that are intolerant?    

If tolerance no longer exists in our society it doesn’t mean we have all come to agree, it means we have lost freedom and liberty. It means we no longer know how to respectfully and civilly discuss ideas and views, but have been forced to accept what the government has decided is right and appropriate. Tolerance, the ability to recognize and respect the divergent views of others, is a hallmark of a free society. Notice that there is not much need for tolerance in China, North Korea, or Cuba? It’s because they are not free societies, they are a society being told what is and is not acceptable in an attempt to keep people from being offended. 

The reality is that we are never guaranteed a life free of offense. But a life without offense is a life without freedom and liberty, a life where we are forced to live based on someone else’s convictions rather than our own. I’d rather live life happily being offended in a free society than to be ensured I would never again be offended.

Help Protect the Family Now!
Please click here to give through our secure online server.

Mark Twain is attributed with having observed “a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth even gets its shoes on.” In this age of instant and round-the-clock media, Twain’s warning is even truer today.

It is interesting to see how some of the biggest cultural issues in America recently have been based upon the lies of liberalism.  For example, the Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade abortion case was supposedly seeking an abortion after being the victim of a gang rape.  Years later, Norma McCorvey, now a born-again Christian and pro-life advocate, admitted that she was never raped at all. It was an intentional lie meant to advance an agenda that has led to 55 million aborted babies.

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which paved the way toward the normalization of homosexuality and the unraveling of marriage, the emotional misnomer was that a police officer looked in the window of a home and saw two males engaged in a sex act, entered the house and arrested them on the spot.  In reality the police were there on a tip about a man with a gun, when they entered the home the clothed men were in two different rooms. Both told officers various lies for differing reasons, and later plead no contest after being coached about making their case into something that could be used by cultural activists.

Although some attempted to point out these facts years ago, the case of Matthew Shephard has reemerged with the publishing of a new book. It is notable in part because it is written by a homosexual (who is now persona non grata with the homosexual demands crowd.)  After interviewing hundreds of people involved in the case, he points out that Shephard was not the victim of a brutal hate crime committed by rednecks because of his homosexuality. 

(Today, a radical gay activist like Dan Savage can insult Christian children with profane, vulgarity-laced speeches in schools to the praise of many. Choose not to make a wedding cake and your business can be shut down based upon your “hate.”)

In reality, the case that launched the nationwide hate crime statute frenzy, which may threaten freedom of speech, was actually a gay on gay crime involving drugs.  Shephard had recently slept with his killer in exchange for methamphetamine.  During that time, one of the murders who had been strung out for five days and owed his dealers money learned that Matthew was part to be a part of a $10,000 drug deal.  He and a friend came back, found Matthew and killed him hoping to get the drugs or money.   The truth was nothing like the hate crime narrative endlessly repeated by the media.

What does it all mean? Perhaps it is just another indictment of causes that are so lacking in righteousness that they need lies to advance them. (As Ronald Reagan once warned, “private values must be at the heart of public policies.”)  Hopefully, it is a reminder that making laws on emotional reactions instead of facts and consideration of the full policy ramifications can have sweeping consequences.  

Pastors, your church needs you to be engaged—fully engaged—in the issues people are facing every day. Maybe you are not personally facing these issues, but they might be. If congregants come to you for help and advice and all you say is, “Sorry to hear about this,” then you’ve failed them.

Elaine Hugenin, owner of Elane Photography, chose not to photograph a same-sex ceremony. Her religious convictions prevent her from using her talents to celebrate same-sex unions. When she declined to photograph the ceremony, the same-sex couple, ignoring Elaine’s right to freely exercise her faith, brought a case against Elane Photography and the New Mexico Supreme Court unjustly found her guilty of discrimination, even though the same-sex couple easily found and used another photographer to capture the ceremony.

I can’t help but wonder what counsel her pastor provided, if any?

In a similar situation, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Washington State declined to offer her floral services for a homosexual couple’s same-sex “marriage” ceremony. The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit against the flower company. Barronelle Stutzman believes her Christian convictions prevent her from supporting the same-sex “marriage” and does not want to violate her convictions. She is still being sued, even though dozens of flower shops can provide flowers for their ceremony.

What insights did her pastor offer during this troubling time?

When the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop said he would rather close his business than violate his religious convictions by baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony, he was sued for discrimination. He is doing his best to stand firm and adhere to his faith but he is being attacked by locals within the community and the media. The same-sex couple, along with the ACLU, have filed a suit against Masterpiece Cakeshop, even though other bakeries could provide a cake for the ceremony.

What words of wisdom did his pastor offer during his hour of need?

Pastors often talk about controversial issues in a detached manner saying they are outside of the church and her scope. But these are real Christians—members of real churches—whose livelihoods, reputations, and lives are being attacked in a very public way. These issues are not outside the church, but within, and must be addressed so that these Christians can live their faith fully and carry their cross with the strength and support their church provides.

Pastors, congregants need you to be informed, engaged, and buttressed by your support and wisdom. If all you offer them during a difficult time is an obscure Bible verse, you might appear indifferent and uncaring. A shepherd needs to care for the needs of his flock, especially when their livelihood is at stake because of their Christian beliefs.

Pastors must be a solid rock for Christians during trying times when they are being assailed by our enemies.  They must be a counselor, friend, and inspirational resource. Make sure congregants know that they can come to you and count on your support. Here are two ways you can show your congregation your support during difficult times.

1.     Skip the rhetoric. Don’t recite sermons, prepared statements, or doxologies from books. Be a real friend, one who cries with them (Rom. 12:15), and is willing to walk by their side through this valley of darkness. I love sermons, Proverbs, Psalm and great quotes from men of God, but sometimes people just need a shoulder to cry on. Be that shoulder.

2.     Become a resource. (Ecc. 4:12) When a person’s character is being assaulted publicly and their livelihood is threatened, inspiring words only go so far. Become a resource for people in your congregation by making sure you are up-to-date on their situation, aware of laws and people and organizations that can help. Familiarize yourself with groups like Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and your local state family policy council that can provide legal and public policy resources.

Difficult times are opportunities for pastors to minister to the needs of their congregants. You will only be able to minister effectively if you are prepared. As ministers of the Gospel, we should endeavor to be “instant in season and out” (2 Tim. 4:2). When people need us, let’s be ready with God’s Word and the necessary resources to stand with those God has entrusted to our care.

This article by Pastor Nathan Cherry first appeared at the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Speak Up blog. You can see the original article and comments HERE. 

“Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us?”
~Judges 15:11 

These are the words that the men of Judah said to Samson when the Philistines were after him. I think they are the saddest words I have ever read. God had given the land to the children of Israel. It belonged to them by the oracles and promises of God. It had been promised to them from the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Under the leadership of Joshua that land had been conquered and belonged to the children of Israel. 

But now, years later, because they had turned away from the Lord, they had been taken over again by the Philistines. These men of Judah were so deceived that they actually believed that the Philistines were there rulers! They had become servants! They had become victims.

Yes, that is what they were experiencing, but they had forgotten the truth! The real truth was that the land belonged to them by God-given mandate! They were deceived! Over the years, their minds had been slowly seduced and now a new generation had grown up believing a lie!

Why are these such sad words? Because they are indicative of our situation today. America was founded on holiness and God’s principles as the Pilgrims walked humbly before God. But now, the humanists, the feminists and the abortionists are ruling over us! This is not how it’s meant to be. 

Isn’t it sad that even many of God’s people are brainwashed by humanist philosophy. It is so part of their lives, that they don’t even realize that so much of their thinking is humanistic. And yet it is opposite to the thinking of the Bible.

Oh may God wake us up. The “Philistines” are not our rulers. Samson did not give into the lie. He was only one lone voice but he defied the Philistines. He defeated the Philistines and became a judge over Israel for 20 years. 

I am always challenged by that scripture in Romans 3:4, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” I often ask myself, “Am I prepared to stand for God’s truth even if everyone else is doing something different?” The way of the majority is not always the right way. It is only God’s way that is right, even if it is the narrow way and few are following it.

May God give us discernment. May we see clearly through all lies and deception. May God give us courage to stand for truth and walk in the light in the midst of darkness. May we not only put on our armor to protect ourselves from the onslaughts of the enemy but may God give us courage to be on the offensive – to use our sword, the truth of the Word of God, against the deceptions of the enemy.

Written by Nancy Campbell.   Nancy is the Editor of Above Rubies, a magazine to bring strength and encouragement to marriage, motherhood and family life.  Printing since 1977, Above Rubies continues to spread across the world to be a life-line to mothers, marriages, and families.  Nancy and her husband, Collin are enjoying their 51st year of marriage and the blessing of many grandchildren. 

It is rather amazing how many of the political and media elites want to push certain parts of the voting block off to a corner, hoping they will seldom be heard from beyond Election Day.  A new study called the 2013 Economic Values Survey from two groups that are not conservative, the Public Research Institute and the Brookings Institute, finds that social conservatives are a lot larger in numbers than attention to them or their issues may indicate.  The researchers found the following:

    •  25 percent of Americans are economic conservatives;
    •  29 percent of Americans are social conservatives;
    •  38 percent of Americans are theological conservatives;
    •  19 percent of Democrats describe themselves as social conservatives. 

The study concludes that economic conservatives “have the weakest hold on American public opinion.”    Yet, in their defense, I would point out something that many economic conservative leaders and political elites often fail to understand, at their own peril; most social conservatives are also economic conservatives, but we do not place our fiscal values above our cultural, family and faith concerns.   

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne analyzed these results noting that that social issues may be one of the best bridges the GOP has to reach Democrats.  He also said, “it turns out that social conservatives loom larger as a part of that conservative constituency and more consistently than economic conservatives.”  The panel of mostly liberal experts reporting the results of their study agreed noting, “Conservatives cannot win [elections] without social conservatives.”

It will be interesting to see if this information reaches the leadership of the Republican party which seems eager to take advice from liberals, the media and (or) their political enemies to walk away from various principles that appeal to social and religious conservatives.    Speaking of elections, there is some talk of former Alaska Governor and political commentator Sarah Palin running for U.S. Senate.  

We need to pay closer attention to what is being taught and not taught in many historically orthodox (small ‘o’) churches. To get a clearer picture of the fuzzy theology that many are embracing—and often concealing from their members, here are some excerpts from (and my thoughts about) a troubling letter a pastor of one such church sent to a church member who had sent him an IFI article on the need for pastors to teach clearly on the topic of homosexuality:

Pastor:

I do seek to preach, teach, and embody the whole counsel of God—though I …don’t feel as though I’ll honestly have that fullness. I think that we know God and we don’t, we get the gospel and we don’t, and that we often and usually as the church get ourselves into trouble when we feel that we fully possess and understand the teachings of Jesus completely.

Of course, it’s true that we see through a glass darkly now and as fallen creatures cannot fully (to borrow his words) “get the gospel.” There are numerous parts of Scripture that are difficult to understand and ideas, like the Trinity and Incarnation, which are conceptually impossible to grasp.

There are, however, parts of Scripture that are clear, one of which is how God views homosexuality. If this pastor doubts whether Scripture is clear on homosexuality, to be exegetically consistent, he must be equally unsure what Scripture teaches on bestiality and incest, because those parts of the Old Testament that address homosexuality in strong and unequivocal language also address bestiality and incest.

Dr. Robert A. Gagnon has written arguably the best book on this issue titled The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. This pastor’s church would be well-served by inviting Dr. Gagnon to teach on the subject.

The pastor goes on:

Pastor:

There are a few verses of Scripture which speak about homosexuality, in the Hebrew Scripture and also in the Epistles of Paul. At the same time, in the gospels, we have a clear image of Jesus, who loves sinners, and who seeks out those that are unwelcome, unwanted, and deemed unclean by the religious community—tax collectors, prostitutes, “other sinners,” lepers, women, children, etc.—and he loves them, eats with them, stays in their homes, and loves them. My own struggle is caught up in this call of Jesus to love and serve the last, the least, and the lost.

There’s a lot packed into those sentences.

First, in a biblical worldview, there is a difference between tax collectors, prostitutes, and “other sinners” and women, children, and lepers. Although they shared in common the experience of social rejection, one group is defined by sin that Jesus and Paul exposed and confronted.

Second, he uses the transitional phrase “at the same time” as if the verses that unequivocally condemn homosexual acts contrast with or oppose the ideas of seeking out, eating with, serving, and loving sinners. Jesus did and we should do both. In fact, teaching the whole counsel of God and exposing deeds of darkness are loving acts. It is only the unsaved world with little capacity to see truth that believes that in order to love others, we must affirm all of their feelings, beliefs, and life choices. There is no Scriptural evidence that Jesus spent time with sinners without soon calling them to repentance.

In an apparent attempt to turn Jesus into a contemporary “progressive,” this pastor asked the strange question, “Have we turned a liberal Jesus who spent his life confronting a conservative religious community into a conservative Jesus who is confronting a liberal religious community?”

Jesus did not confront only the religious community, as this pastor’s statement implies. Jesus confronted sin in whomever he found it. He confronted the established “conservative” religious community for its deviation from truth and righteousness, and he confronted individual sinners for their deviations from truth and righteousness. He told the rich young ruler to give up his possessions. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. And Zacchaeus repented of his sins before his feet hit the ground. There is no scriptural evidence that Jesus sat around just chewing the fat and being “relational” with sinners for extended periods of time, all the while appearing to or actually affirming their sin as so many churches do today in regard to homosexuality.

Through Paul, God unequivocally lays out his vision for the church on sexual matters. Paul chastised the church in Corinth for its embrace of sexual immorality. With regard to believers in the church, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5:11, “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” And doing this is an act of love—not hatred. Knowing that those who not only engage in the sin of homosexuality but also embrace and affirm homosexuality will not see the Kingdom, Paul sought to restore them to a proper relationship with Christ and within the body.

As justification for the church’s increasing silence on homosexuality, this pastor correctly pointed out that sins of all kinds are present in the church, some of which, like greed, are far more prevalent than homosexuality. I have yet to hear, however, of a church that affirms greed as good. What this pastor failed to acknowledge is the huge difference between experiencing and succumbing to sinful impulses and proclaiming sin to be righteousness, which is the problem in churches today with regard to the serious sin of homosexuality.

And it is serious. Far too many churches have embraced the theologically unorthodox view that all sins are equal. All sins are equal in one regard: they separate us from God. But we know from Scripture that all sins are not equal in all ways. Some, like bestiality, incest, homosexuality, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are more serious.

Perhaps the pastor’s most troubling statement was this:

Pastor:

I am pastor to folks who read and study Scripture, who love God and live by faith in Jesus, and who feel differently about the issue of homosexuality in regards the church and also in our culture, politically, as is being discussed these days. My first concern is that we remain unified in Christ, who calls us all to the feast of Holy Communion, Christ who calls us together into ministry. My second concern is that regardless of where we stand individually on this issue (or any other), we must stand firmly committed to love, and to the welcome of all people who are sinful and broken to join us at the table.

It is passing strange to hear a pastor argue that his teaching is shaped by the political views of his flock, particularly views that contravene clear biblical teaching. How his flock “feels” about homosexuality should be wholly irrelevant to what he teaches. Church unity must never trump Scripture, and the presence of diverse views on how to interpret Scripture does not mean that all views are equally sound.

Would this pastor make these same statements if some of his members were affirming bestiality, adult consensual incest, or polyamory as moral and biblically justifiable? If not, why not? Is there any sin the affirmation of which would be sufficient for him to say doctrine trumps unity? Pragmatically, what would he do if two men in a homosexual civil union who claimed to be believers started attending his church and sought to become members? What would he do if, in the presence of children, they could be seen holding hands?

True love does not accommodate sin. All of us are sinful and broken, but coming to Christ and partaking of Holy Communion necessarily involves repentance. And facilitating repentance are pastors who preach truth.

All Christians should ask their pastors and priests what they believe about homosexuality. If their answers are wrong, evasive, or equivocal, Christians should find other churches, churches where God is glorified and his word honored.

Please watch this compelling “must-see” video in which young British theologian Andrew Wilson winsomely but persistently challenges the grounding for Rob Bell’s theological heterodoxy on homosexuality, exposing that Rob Bell has no grounding in Scripture. Bell grounds his abandonment of theological orthodoxy in his own experiences and his own strategic vision for evangelization:

And take some time to read the post that accompanies this video as well as the wise comments that follow.

On a tangential note: I guess the mainstream media is wrong. There actually are young people who believe that homosexual acts are not moral. Moreover, they’re whip smart, well-informed, gracious, and compassionate.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

To say this is “highly recommended” is a gross understatement…if you have the time, give it:

We encounter an incredible diversity of cultures, lifestyles, and faiths. Unfortunately our conflicting identities and beliefs often exclude others. Is there truth to real acceptance and inclusion? Join in discussion with renowned international speaker and Christian philosopher Dr. Ravi Zacharias. Extended Q&A following the dialogue with Dr. Zacharias and Michael Ramsden, speaker and Director at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University.