A quick definition of hate: standing up for the truth of God’s word is “hate.”

I argued with these pastors and leaders from the Scripture. They, in turned, argued back that I was narrow-minded and old-school and that I could never understand their ways. To them, it did not matter the multiple Scriptures condemning the practice and the participants; it did not matter to them Jesus’ example of praising the prophets for their hateful ways (modern definition) rather than condemning them as narrow-minded; nor did it matter to them these homosexuals were on the road to hell and their method would do nothing to turn them back. And, in the end, I refused to “agree to disagree.”

It is hard for the church – and especially youth pastors – to stand up for the truth because they are more interested in what the church looks like than what the message of the Gospel is. This is ironic, because these are the same people who are supposed to address the problem of peer pressure to our youth, yet they cannot handle the problem themselves.

Molotov Mitchell has a short video out that addresses this issue: What should be the Christian response to the homosexual? [scroll down to "My Gay Friends" - depending on when you read this, it might be a ways down the list.]

[movie deleted because of script conflict]

Instead, I want to talk to Christians who are inclined to vote to give marriage benefits to same-sex partners despite moral concerns about homosexuality. You know who you are.

You believe in grace, redemption, forgiveness and the need to love your neighbor as yourself. You believe that homosexuality is sin, but you have a hard time opposing homosexual rights measures because you feel it would be forcing people to abide by your personal moral code. You do not dislike gay people. In fact, you like your gay friends more than some Christians you know.

You are inclined to vote in favor of benefits for homosexuals simply to avoid association attitudes you have seen from fellow Christians. After all, you believe fervently in the command to love your neighbor.

However, you may fail to recognize the distinction between loving your neighbor and being liked. Many people make this mistake. In fact many believe the test of whether or not you love your neighbor is whether or not they like you. Therefore, in an effort to prove their love by being liked, they purge their lives of all controversy.

When a choice is to be made, they spend far more time pondering what other people are going to think than they do wondering whether or not it is right. Individuals will bite their tongue. Churches will avoid certain passages of scripture for decades at a time-all in the name of love.

The idea that Christians should try to be well liked is somewhat ironic when you consider the fact that Jesus was murdered. Moreover, He promised his disciples that they would be hated for obedience to him. (John 15:18; Matt 10:21-23). So where did we get the idea that being like Jesus means everybody is going to like us?

Christian charity is frequently looked upon favorably. Christian holiness, however, is not. Still, the goal for the Christian is not to be like or hated, political or apolitical, popular or unpopular. The goal is to be biblical.

Referendum 71 presents a dilemma for many Christians. They understand that God does not believe homosexual relationships are the equivalent of heterosexual marriages. They certainly don’t want their children being taught in school that they are morally the same. But is it kind if it will make someone angry?

It presents an even bigger dilemma for pastors. They have a tremendous opportunity for influence. But should they risk the potential fallout of addressing the biblical perspective on this issue?

While I have opinions, I cannot answer these questions for you. I will simply say that whatever decision is made, I hope it comes more from a desire to be faithful and less from a need to be liked.

Joseph Backholm
http://fpiw.org/mondayminute

King Herod and mere puppet for Caesar considered himself to be a god and did not silence the people when they worshiped him. The Bible tells us, in chapter twelve of Acts, when he accepted the praise of man and failed to give glory to God, he was struck down and immediately eaten by worms and died.

In America, the land of the free and home of the brave, we have become overrun by bureaucrats. Many of them believe themselves to be gods. In fact, they hold the power of God over a man’s life and business. Even many bureaucrats who profess to be Christian, have no fear of God but continue to build empires and despise their brothers’ freedoms.

Last April, speaking in Turkey, President Obama declared to his audience and the whole world that America, whose foundation is firmly rooted in the laws of the Bible, is no longer Christian. There are many Christians who agree with him, claiming we live in a post-Christian age. My friend, this is a myth. For never in the history of the United States of America has the population been truly Christian. What determines whether we are a Christian nation are our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States (as written) has not changed. By that measure, we are still firmly Christian.

What Obama actually told the world was, “We do not consider ourselves Christian.” Here is the leader of our nation, presumably speaking for the American people and affirming we are no longer Christian. Granted, by polling, it appears those who claim to be Christian is down to somewhere in the high sixty to low seventy percentile. Even though the majority of our nation are not true Christian, yet still the majority claims to be. So, how is it he can say this and get away with it? Even more, declaring we are the largest Muslim nation in the world, thus changing our national religion in the space of one speech?

On 07 May, President Obama refused to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer – an honor to God. But a few weeks later, he reserved an entire month for the celebration of Gay and Lesbian Pride – a dishonor to God. Within days of this event, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared on MSNBC Obama was above the people, above the world – he was a god. Actually worse. He said, “he’s sort of God.” Not just a god, or a man-god as were the early kings. Now he is on equal footing with God, Himself.

The early kings believed they were above the law and above the church. From the time of Christ, there was never a secular document to refute this until 15 June 1215 when the nobles of England confronted King John and forces him to acknowledge the law and God-given rights. This document, the Magna Charta, underwent much misinterpretation and abuse by kings that followed, much as our Constitution does today. But the document was never forgotten and it was used at many times to raise up the law and/or the people to curb tyranny, be it ever so temporary.

It was the Calvinists that firmly delineated the separation of the king’s law and the supremacy of God’s law. This is the heritage that followed most the early settlers, save the Puritans who clung to the state church. This is our heritage: the rightly dividing of the Word of Truth to understand that God reigns above all and that His church does not submit to any government, including any 501(C)(3). We are losing that heritage because our ministers will not stand up to the king. They long for the praise of men and they have thrown off doctrine and replaced it with tolerance and therapy.

Now we have a president, who is king, who is god.

My late friend, Otto Scott, wrote a book entitled “The Great Christian Revolution” (1994). He recounts a similar time to today in England. It was during the reign of King James, in the early sixteen hundreds.

“The King,” James said, “is above the law.” He asserted that kings were not only God’s “lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself are called gods.”

James relied on the Church of England to protect these claims, which reflected the politics of Spain, France and the Vatican. He did not understand that in England the common law competed against ecclesiastical law, and had done so for centuries. [Ed note: King James was raised in Scotland and was King James VI of Scotland before becoming King James I of England.]

Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, did not believe that the courts of the Church should have greater power than the Common Courts of England. Therefore, when an appeal from a High Commission [Ed note: Church Court] ruling came before him, he decided that Parliament could review the High Commission’s behavior.

Although cowardly and depraved, James I was not stupid. As a child of the Scots revolution, he knew what could happen to a monarch whose agents were overruled. In early 1609, Coke’s habit of issuing “prohibitions” against High Commission rulings, fines and imprisonments led to a confrontation between the king, his bishops and the Chief Justice.

Coke cited the Magna Carta which, he said, gave the Courts of Common Law the right to provide justice “from highest to the lowest.”

James replied angrily that if he chose, he could dispense justice himself, because he “had reason and could judge.” Coke said the king could reason, but didn’t know the law. He also added the king was “under God and the law.”

At that James flew into a rage. The issue he thought buried forever, drilled into him by Buchanan, [Ed note: Buchanan was James' tutor] that had led his mother to death, had risen inside England and the citadels of his power.

Coke apologized; the bishops soothed the monarch, the meeting ended but nothing changed. The Court of Common Pleas continued to clip the High Commission; underground presses continued Puritan arguments and even irreligious men began to chafe at the presumption of a body legally charged with controlling their faith – and their minds.

This struggle has often been described in purely political terms. Yet the argument that the king is under the law was presented to the people of James’ time by the Calvinist Buchanan and his associates. It was a religious argument that marked the difference between Calvinists and Arminianism and Lutheranism, among others.

The struggle to determine who will rule over man – God or man, iis the same struggle that has been going on from the beginning. Lord Acton said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This is even played out in the American experiment. There is always a reason for a new law and every new law means a legion of new bureaucrats. With legions of bureaucrats, our new president is not only attempting to rule our nation but even the whole world. He presumes by his oratory confidence and declarations that what he says will be so. He will tell us what we believe.

The media trumpets his decrees. The politicians cower before him. “Hail, Obama!”

Only one man will stand. The Christian who is committed to tolerance or therapy, or government solutions to mans’ problems will not stand against a tyrant. Only the man who stands on the word of God and fearlessly proclaims “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men.” [Dan 4:25]

History repeats itself and it is repeating itself today. Where will you stand?

On Sunday, November 2nd, 2008, just two days before the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, I wrote,

“Tuesday, November 4th, will be a day of deliverance, either into captivity and lamentation, or into the recognition that our ordered liberties come from God; into the twilight before nightfall, or into the glorious light of day after the threat has passed; into an awakening and revival, or the awareness of great loss and evil to come.”

Can God’s people be counted on to stand up for truth?

A few nights ago Miss California chose to honor God, and take a stand for traditional marriage before a TV audience of millions. The truth – and her relationship with Christ – was more important to her than a temporal, earthly crown. It may have cost her a beauty contest, but in the minds and hearts of millions of Americans, she is ‘Miss USA’, no matter how the judges ruled.

A few days before, another woman – not as young or attractive – ignored the snickers, sneers and jeers of Britain’s pop culture, and courageously demonstrated it was worth pursuing her dream no matter what anyone else thought of her!

If America is to recover from the elevation of Godless secularism over the last 70 years, and the debilitating agenda of the current administration and out of control congress, Christians must do as Carrie Prejean and Susan Boyle did. If we do not, we will find ourselves consigned to an economic, moral, spiritual and political wilderness that one would never wish upon anyone, let alone their children.

That is the challenge to America’s Christians. Will we stand, or will we fold? Will we open our mouths, and speak truth, or will we continue to be intimidated by misguided policy makers, the self aggrandizing, the deceived, the intolerant, and the morally challenged? None of these are insurmountable giants to be left to guide public policy for their own pleasures and agendas, especially when America’s Christians stand shoulder to shoulder in the voting booth and town councils!

The eyes of faith. . . or the lens of fear

Bob Gass, in the April 21st “The Word for You Today” writes, “When you get right down to it, there’s very little difference in people, but the little difference amounts to a big difference, and the little difference is attitude; it determines whether you see life through the eyes of faith or the lens of fear.” When those around Joshua and Caleb “saw only giants and wanted to turn back”, Caleb said,

“If the LORD delights in us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us.” – Numbers 14:8

When God’s people seek His Face, turn from their wicked ways, and live courageously, confidently, and boldly to honor and glorify Him, He honors and blesses them. . . and heals their land! Cf. II Chronicles 7:14
Does our God ‘Delight in us’?

When we

* Shrink back from honoring Him openly, publicly, and courageously?
* VOTE for candidates for public office who openly defy God’s laws?
* Ignore our citizenship reponsibility to VOTE?
* Look the other way when we see evil being condoned?
* Choose to wait for the rapture instead of occupying until He comes?
* Refuse to speak truth in public meetings, forums, and legislatures?
* Remain silent when we should speak up and take action?
* Refuse to support and work for candidates who hold our values?
* Remove pastors from their pulpits who wish to speak openly and clearly into the culture?

Does He “Delight in us” when we do these things?
“There comes a time in the affairs of men when they must prepare to defend, not their homes alone, but the tenets of faith and humanity on which their churches, their governments, and their very civilization are founded.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt [ed - ironic, isn't it?]

That time has come, and it is imperative that we prepare NOW for the 2010 elections.

Pastor Salvation Only is very wrong. In fact, he is part of the problem. The Bible tells us clearly that man is not looking for God, as Pastor Salvation Only claims (Isa 64:7, Rom 3:11). While there are several admonitions to seek after God, the Bible tells us man may tip his hat to God while seeking his own way (Isa 58, Jer 7). Pastor Salvation Only is wrong, in that this election was not a declaration that man is looking for Jesus Christ, or looking for repentance. This election was a declaration that man is looking for a messiah, a rock star, a leader who will make them feel good about themselves, a leader who will bring change, without requiring them to change their lifestyles – or repentance.

People talk about how we live in a post-Christian era. They are wrong, in that the perception is flawed. Never in the history of America has the majority of the people been truly Christian. The difference between the founding of this nation and now is the Christian influence. Early pastors were not afraid to stand up for God’s law. In that sense, they became political. By standing up for what God requires; by standing up for a clear definition of a repentant, changed life; by standing up for a faithful walk with Jesus Christ, they became political. When Christians did not compromise Biblical principles they were influential.

In his effort to silence the Christian opposition, Lynden Johnson orchestrated the 501(C)(3) status for the churches. The churches bought into it, surrendered the Christian walk to the civil branch of government and began building more churches – now with mortgages. With mortgages, they had people to please for payment to meet and the contract with the government dictated their parameters of free speech. Slowly, and painfully, the church lost its way and lost influence in the culture. You may properly say, “we live in a post-Christian influence culture,” even while the founding documents remain Christian.

There are a group of professing Christians that call themselves “progressive,” which means liberal. They have published a book called “The Commands of Men.” The authors are anonymous, as if that lends to credibility. Currently, I am on page 88 and so far, it has been a whine against Republicans and conservatives and they have not yet presented one Bible verse in proof of their premise that the redistribution of wealth (ROW) is the responsibility of the civil government, or that ROW is a command of Christ, although this is their premise. Look for a review of this book in a future blog.

This group of progressive Christians misuse Colossians 2:8, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends upon human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Their premise, in using this verse, is the non-ROW view is selfish, which is a violation of Christ’s commands.

Obama won the vote of more than eighty percent of the professing Christians and about sixty percent of Evangelical Christians. This was with the help of Pastor Salvation Only. He never taught them the proper interpretation of Colossians 2:8. He never taught them proper repentance leads to a changed life; that repentance mandates following Christ; that Christ instructed charity to be the role of the individual; that the early church demonstrated corporate charity and the church throughout history has upheld this example until the establishment of the 501(C)(3).

In fact, a recent poll claims 46 percent of the American voters believe it is the civil government’s responsibility to redistribute wealth. Only 42 percent believe ROW is wrong.

Pastor Salvation Only never taught his people that stealing from one person to help another is still stealing. He never taught his people it is wrong to expect from civil government to perform the role of the believing church body. Pastor Salvation Only never taught his people to study the Scriptures and transform their thinking (Rom 12:1-2, Col 2:6-10). Instead, in the name of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, he allowed them to maintain their old covetous desires, as long as their intent was to accomplish good.

The public school system is entrenched in the doctrine of ROW, from the top of the union, down through the levels of administration and teachers, down through the curriculum. And we wonder why students no longer believe in the American dream, that if you work hard, you will succeed and have a prosperous life. In masses, the student vote was overwhelmingly for the election of Obama, on his promise of “Change,” “Hope” and the redistribution of wealth.

Working hard to succeed may sound selfish by today’s mantras, but Paul warned us, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” [2Th 3:10]. Notice the word “shall,” it is a legal term meaning imperative or mandatory. Therefore, what Paul means is if a man will not work, he is not to beg off others and others are not to feed him. No, the Christian code is not heartless, there is ample text to support the role of charity to the helpless and less fortunate. But we do not steal.

If a man works hard and is successful, he can bless others. If he will not give, he is selfish and that is between him and God to judge. It is not the responsibility of the civil government, bureaucrats and the covetous to make it otherwise. Furthermore, whom a man chooses to bless is also between himself and God. It is not the responsibility of the civil government, bureaucrats and the covetous to determine what a legitimate charity is, or to redefine legitimate charity. Regardless, the fact remains, if a man is stripped of his wealth, his ability to bless others, in obedience to God, is limited.

Today is Thanksgiving Day 2008. Regardless the economic chaos and the moral turpitude that seems to overwhelm us, we still have much to be thankful for. Christ still reigns; He has given us salvation and while we are on this world, He provides for our every need. He gives us good laws to live by and He teaches us to love our brothers and sisters. God has blessed us with much.

However, for the covetous, there can be no Thanksgiving Day – because they can only see what they do not have. The majority of the people voting for Obama had the vision he will take from the undeserving and selfish rich and give relief to the needy (the voter is needy). As that lady said in the popular YouTube video, “Now I don’t have to worry about gas; I don’t have to worry about my mortgage.” So, the covetous may at least be thankful today that Obama is going to solve their worries. But they have no grounds to be thankful to God, because their hope is not in Him.

You have failed, Pastor Salvation Only, you did not teach your sheep that salvation by faith in Jesus Christ means to live in obedience to Him and that repentance involves a transformation of the mind and mandates turning away from covetousness and allegiance to the state. True repentance will lead to Thanksgiving. Not thankfulness to a false messiah but thankfulness to God Almighty.

This Thanksgiving Day 2008, I am thankful to God.

“So the administrators and the satraps went as a group to the king and said: “O King Darius, live forever! The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or man during the next thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into the lions’ den. Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered — in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” So King Darius put the decree in writing.

“Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.” [Dan 6:6-10 NIV]

Here the government officials, out of jealousy toward Daniel, convinced the king to make a law establishing the state, or namely the king, to be higher than all authority on earth or in heaven. This is evidence of the narrow thinking and foolishness of man, that he can make a law that would establish himself, or an entity of himself, to have dominion over God.

This goes all the way back to Satan’s rebellion. He believed, in his magnificence, he could elevate himself above his Creator – or at least to a position higher than what was given him by God (Isa 14). In the Garden of Eden, man believed he could become as God, or at least as wise as Him (Gen 3). After the Flood, the great conqueror, Nimrod, intoxicated by his victories and his ability to unite mankind believed he could create a city that would negate mans’ need for a Provider and Savior (Gen 11). For the next five thousand years, in some shape or fashion, man has made every attempt to reprise the Tower of Babel. In our day, mankind of all nations, is rushing to elevate the state above God and sin above good.

In this account, the seduction was simple: Write a law and earn the praise of man. As our Christian nation is increasingly putting aside its godly heritage, more of our laws are for the praise of man, tearing apart our foundation of Biblical law. Every new law is carefully preceded by a crisis. Every politician presents his case as our ultimate provider and savior, without which, our society will of necessity fall asunder. It matters little that we ran out of money to pay for new salvations long ago and our grandchildren will be paying these back long into their retirement years.

This situation is not limited to the secular arena; according to a recent issue of World magazine, more and more “Christian” organizations are jumping onto the earmarked and subsidy gravy train. How often do we see professing Christian lawmakers promoting, or at least voting for, new government programs. How many people will the state rescue so that they will not have to look to God for help?

In Daniel’s situation, there was a penalty: acknowledge the state alone as god or die. Our nation will eventually get to that position; we have been weaving the cloth year-after-year. Too often the Daniels of today will give us upbeat speeches on how bending to the state will lend more credibility to the church and increase our stature among men. Then we all shout “Amen!” and join the throng. We are no longer a people given to prayer -we are given to relationship. We are confused. Daniel was not confused on this matter; he prayed three times a day.

For Darius, the unintended consequence of his action was the imprisonment of his trusted friend Daniel. Daniel prayed. Daniel trusted God. Daniel declared God to be above all kings and authority. God delivered Daniel. After Darius ordered Daniel removed from the pit, he issued a proclamation declaring Daniel’s God to be above all dominion, nations and kings. I suspect he prayed before he wrote another law.

When the state proclaims its message of salvation, there are those who bow and worship; there are those who condemn; and there are those who have no idea what is going on. It is easy to sit in judgment of Darius. We can sit in judgment of our savior-provider-state. Do we pray? Daniel fought back through prayer. Jesus said all authority has been given to Him (Mat 28:18). He also said the kingdom of heaven is forcefully advancing and the forceful lay hold of it (Mat 11:12). To proclaim God above the state, we need to live for Christ and be in forceful prayer (Jam 5:16).

You can see almost anything you want on YouTube. Most of us have seen the video of the Obama supporter who was elated with the election results because now she does not have to worry about how she is going to pay for her gas and her mortgage.

Someone forwarded a story to my email. Whether it is true or not, it makes a good point: A second grade teacher wanted to help her students understand the election process. So she held a class election. Two students were nominated. One tried to express ways he was going to help make class better. The other promised ice cream. When asked how she was going to give everyone ice cream, she said she did not know. Regardless, the girl who promised ice cream won by a landslide.

Obama promised ice cream the same way as FDR and Lyndon Johnson did. He won by a landslide. Already the media has been prepping us to lower our expectations. They have been telling us he cannot deliver the miracles he promised – even though it was the media who reinforced those promises in our minds before the election. Don’t expect them to hold him accountable about this, either. Chris Matthews has echoed the feeling of the media operatives when he said, “It is my job to make Obama successful.”

Obama won the race on flowery speeches. He is an articulate man. This does not mean he is a wise man. Nor does this mean he will be able to seduce our enemies with the same skill as he displayed with the electorate. But it was beautiful: all those Scripture-like quotes that gave the illusion of the Second Coming of Christ – and the promise of ice cream.

Last week a lady came into my store and began talking about how wonderful she felt just after the election. She was a Christian woman and she was seduced by the false messiah. She told me how she had never before seen our nation so united, rejoicing together and how we all felt like we were a part of each other and a part of something big. I pointed out there was a losing side and they might not feel the same unity. “Oh sure,” she replied. “I wasn’t thinking about that. I was thinking about the way I felt, and my friends and the images on the television.”

Ice cream wins over hard work and self-discipline. So we are back to worrying, along with Adam Wilson, how the State is going to supply all our needs when the coffers are not as full as they used to be.