Rss

  • youtube

America’s “Gray-suited bureaucrats”- Part I

Posted by :admin On : October 21, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

On June 23, 2016, the British People throughout the United Kingdom voted to end forty plus years of membership in the European Union. As one writer put it, many Britons felt forsaken by the country’s political and cultural leadership. Many believed that their lives were controlled by “gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats” at the EU’s headquarters.”[1]

Many Americans and possibly a large majority feel they, too, are being controlled by a vast army of gray-suited governmental officials and bureaucrats who are no longer responsive to the will and wishes of a majority of the people. There are three principal culprits in the marginalization of the American electorate in the governing process.

Judiciary

The problem with the modern judiciary is that it has crossed the line of its Constitutionally-mandated powers by creating legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. In the first eight decades following the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the Supreme Court ruled only twice that a law created by Congress was unconstitutional, and both times the ruling was ignored by Congress and the President.

In Marbury v. Madison, President Jefferson rejected the belief that the Judiciary was the final voice and described the damage to the Constitution of a contrary opinion.

[O]ur Constitution…has given – according to this opinion – to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.[2] [emphasis added]

Sixty-two years later, Abraham Lincoln and the Congress ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Not only was the ruling ignored but directly disobeyed. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into free territories and in 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery throughout the nation.[3] Several of Abraham Lincoln’s remarks in his first Inaugural Address were prompted by the Dred Scott decision.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court…At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having…resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.[4] [emphasis added]

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court does not make its ruling the “law of the land.” In defending his veto of legislation passed by Congress and deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson made a noteworthy description of the duties of the three branches of government with regard to interpreting the Constitution.

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others…The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.[5]

Irrespective of words of Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln, the modern judiciary in the age of the “living” Constitution has made it increasingly pliable in order to accommodate the humanistic worldview and philosophies of society’s elites and overseers in order to impose their socially-engineered laws and regulations which stand in opposition to the popular will and wishes of the people and their mores, norms, traditions, and voices of the past.

Executive Branch

The rule of law implies that governmental authority (power) is limited and may only be exercised in accordance with written laws adopted through an established procedure. When elected or appointed officials and bureaucrats exercise power beyond the limits established by the law, it is called abuse.

The brazen overreach of the Executive Branch under the Obama administration has occurred through the disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers and may be unparalleled in American history. In addition to scorning the rebukes by the Supreme Court for his un-Constitutional executive actions, the President has violated his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws through his selective enforcement and/or changes to laws enacted by Congress. Additionally, the administration has regularly circumvented the powers of the legislative branch through the issuance of illegitimate executive orders to accomplish what Congress would not approve and to frustrate implementation of legislation that Congress has approved.[6]

The two pillars of Barack Obama’s crumbling legacy are Obamacare and the American foreign policy of disengagement marked by diplomacy and multilateralism.[7] But perhaps Barack Obama’s presidency will be most remembered for his above-the-law actions in the Executive Branch and the attendant widespread lawlessness at all levels of the federal government under his administration.

Unelected bureaucracy

Regardless of President Obama’s involvement in or prior knowledge of the various scandals that have been endemic throughout his administration, his arrogant example sent the message that his decrees and agenda were superior to the laws of the land. Although an abusive bureaucracy was not the invention of President Obama, he has dramatically accelerated the level of abuse.

Regulatory oversight is a necessary and proper function of government. However, under the expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause beginning in 1936, much of regulatory oversight has become an autocratic function of a nanny-state bureaucracy intruding into the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference.[8] The burden and cost of regulations on average Americans and businesses is staggering. To give insight into the massive size of the federal bureaucracy we look to Title 27 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. This is the U.S. Tax Code which contains 16,845 pages including the part written by Congress. It is available for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing office for $1,153. However, the U.S. Tax Code is just one of 50 titles found in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, each of which contains one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis.[9] To these we add a multitude of state, county, city, and other regulatory entities’ rules and regulations.

In recent years there has been a frightening new adversarial mutation to the once overbearing but benign American governmental bureaucracy. The most recent scandals at the IRS and Departments of State, Justice, and Health and Human Services have exposed the dark underbelly of the rapacious bureaucratic monster. The goal of these agencies and bureaucracies is self-perpetuation which is accomplished by aiding those in power that are most friendly to their continued existence, financial health, and growth. A recent op-ed piece written by John Brock reveals how this symbiotic system works.

Government agencies are extorting billions of dollars from companies they regulate to the extent they are becoming independent of congressional appropriations and congressional oversight. For example, a Tulsa manufacturing firm was recently notified by the Environmental protection agency that a report was late. The company’s government consultant informed the company that previously such an error would have resulted in a $10,000 fine. The fine this time was $300,000. However, if the company would agree not to appeal through courts, the EPA would reduce the fine to $200,000. That is about the legal cost of an appeal. The delinquent report was that “there is nothing to report.” Early on regulators required a report only if there was a rule violation.

Most think that fines and penalties assessed by regulators go into the Treasury. Not so. The agency gets to keep the money, which it uses for bonuses to employees, employee parties, hiring more employees and buying equipment. For example, in the last eight years most agencies, using funds acquired from fines, have created their own police departments in lieu of using federal marshals. There are now more agency police than there are Marines in the U.S. Marine Corp. This extortion happens every day and all over the country and is increasing.[10]

In a 2008 speech, presidential candidate Barack Obama said that, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Where is this civilian national security force? It is housed in over seventy agencies according to a 2012 report and includes such agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which has an enforcement division manned by 191 employees and a budget of $65 million. Also, these agencies are often called on to conduct joint enforcement operations. And to whom do these seventy agencies ultimately report? That’s right, the president.[11]
______

It is time for the states, Congress, and the American people to reign in the excesses of the Judiciary and Executive branch of government that has undermined Constitutional balanced of powers as designed by Madison and the Founders during the Constitutional Convention. Can there be a Brexit for America to shut down these gray-suited bureaucrats who are threatening the freedom of ordinary Americans? No, but there is a Constitutional solution. More on that in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Amanda Taub, “Brexit, explained: 7 Questions About What It Means and Why It Matters,” The New York Times, June 23, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/world/europe/brexit-britain-eu-explained.html?_r=0 (accessed October 5, 2016).
[2] David Barton, Original Intent, (Alledo, Texas: Wallbuider Press, 2008), p. 271. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 213, to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.
[3] Ibid. p. 272.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Larry G. Johnson, “The end of sustainable government,” CultureWarrior.net, August 15, 2014. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/08/15/the-end-of-sustainable-government/
[7] Charles Krauthammer, “The Stillborn Legacy of Barak Obama,” The Patriot Post, October 7, 2016. https://patriotpost.us/opinion/45242 (accessed October 10, 2016).
[8] Larry G. Johnson, “The fragility of free speech in America,” CultureWarrior.net, March 21,2014. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/03/21/the-fragility-of-free-speech-in-america/
[9] “What is the Real Size of the U.S. Federal Tax Code,” Isaac Brock Society, February 12, 2012. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/02/12/what-is-the-real-size-of-the-u-s-federal-tax-code/ (accessed April 9, 2014).
[10] John Brock, “Citizens deliver a vote of no confidence,” Tulsa World, July 15, 2016, A-9.
[11] “Beware the increasing militarization of government,” Investor’s Business Daily, April 16, 2014. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/many-federal-agencies-have-armed-divisions/ (accessed October 10, 2016).

The meaning of Brexit

Posted by :admin On : October 14, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Government, Humanism

Brexit is the shorthand phrase for the British exit of the European Union. On June 23, 2016, the British people voted on a referendum that asked: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” The pro-Brexit forces argued that Britain should leave the European Union in order to restore and protect the nation’s culture, independence, and identity in the world. In addition to a loss of national freedom to a super state, one of the contributing factors was the unsettling massive influx of immigrants spreading across Europe and Great Britain. The principal argument of the anti-Brexit forces was that the economic benefits were far better for Britain as a member of the EU and that leaving would cause severe immediate and long-term damage to the British economy.[1]

Many of those favoring Brexit were generally from the lower classes and the poor who felt forsaken by the country’s political and cultural leadership. Many believed that their lives were controlled by “gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats” at the EU’s headquarters.[2]

Brian Klaas of the London School of Economics said that many Britons felt that they were losing their cultural and national identity. That belief was clearly revealed by a 2013 survey that found that three-fourths of Britons wanted a reduction in immigration numbers including fifty-six percent who said that the reduction should be substantial even though Britain’s immigration levels were lower than other European countries.[3]

Approximately 33.6 million Britons representing seventy-two percent of the UK electorate voted on the referendum, and the results shocked many British and Western leaders. The combined vote throughout the United Kingdom favored exiting the EU 51.9% to 48.1%. The results by its individual members were as follows:

England voted to exit the EU 53.4% to 46.6% (28,455,000 total votes).
Wales voted to exit the EU 52.5% to 47.5% (1,627,000 total votes).
Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU 55.8% to 44.2% (790,000 total votes).
Scotland voted to stay in the EU 62.0% to 38.0% (2,680,000 total votes).
Other UK members voted to stay in the EU 81.1% to 18.9% (55,000 total votes).[4]

Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative government, announced his resignation following the Brexit vote. He had campaigned hard to defeat the resolution. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labor Party, received a no-confidence vote from the members of his party but vowed not to resign. Corbyn was accused of conducting a weak campaign against the referendum.[5]

Opponents of Brexit predicted dire economic consequences for the UK should it vote to exit the EU. Opposition to Britain’s separation from the UK was almost universal among the leadership of Western nations including President Obama. Because of the overwhelming predictions of economic disaster should the UK exit the EU, many predicted that the referendum would fail. But one French op-ed writer cut to the heart of the matter in his explanation of why the majority of the British people voted to exit the EU in spite of such dire economic predictions.

The decision that the people of Britain have just made was indeed an act of courage — the courage of a people who embrace their freedom.

Brexit won out, defeating all forecasts. Britain decided to cast off from the European Union and reclaim its independence among the world’s nations. It had been said that the election would hinge solely on economic matters; the British, however, were more insightful in understanding the real issue than commentators like to admit.

British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom.

The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will…

And what about the European Parliament? It’s democratic in appearance only, because it’s based on a lie: the pretense that there is a homogeneous European people, and that a Polish member of the European Parliament has the legitimacy to make law for the Spanish. We have tried to deny the existence of sovereign nations. It’s only natural that they would not allow being denied.[6]

The European Union is the poster child for cultural failure. It is by nature syncretistic (the combination of different forms of belief or practice). And under the syncretistic banner of multiculturalism and diversity, the EU promotes the false worldview of humanism whose tenets lack the necessary elements for cultures to survive. Richard Weaver described the true nature of culture and the elements necessary for its survival.

It is the essence of culture to feel its own imperative and to believe in the uniqueness of its worth…Syncretistic cultures like syncretistic religions have always proved relatively powerless to create and to influence; there is no weight or authentic history behind them. Culture derives its very desire to continue from its unitariness…There is at the heart of every culture a center of authority from which there proceed subtle and pervasive pressures upon us to conform and to repel the unlike as disruptive…it must insist on a pattern of inclusion and exclusion…[It is] inward facing toward some high representation…Culture is by nature aristocratic, for it is a means of discriminating between what counts for much and what counts for little…For this reason it is the very nature of culture to be exclusive…There can be no such thing as a “democratic” culture in the sense of one open to everybody at all times on equal terms…For once the inward-looking vision and the impulse to resist the alien are lost, disruption must ensue.”[7]

The two essentials that any culture must have and without which it disintegrates over time are unity and truth. A society’s central cultural vision must command unity, and such unity must filter up from individuals, not be coerced or forced down on society by its elites. Also, a culture’s central cultural vision must be based on truth with regard to the nature of man, creation, and God. Without a central cultural vision that commands unity and is based on truth, there can be no order to the soul or society, and without order in both, society deteriorates over time and eventually disintegrates.

Where does a society get its central cultural vision (the “collective consciousness of the group”)? In a free society it is the collective worldviews of its people which flow upward and give direction to its leaders. In a socialistic society it is the worldviews and philosophies of the ruling elites which flow downward and are imposed on each sphere of society.

But even when the collective consciousness of the group is in unity, it will not survive if it is not based on truth. Germany in the 1930s met the first essential of unity. Although Germany’s central cultural vision flowed downward from the Nazi elites, it was embraced by the majority of the German population which was unified around certain patterns of inclusion and exclusion, what counted for much and what counted for little. Although unified, its central cultural vision was based on a faulty humanistic understanding of the world. As a result German culture died in literal ruins at the end of World War II.

When one examines the European Union’s organization, treaties, laws, and regulations and compares those with the following excerpts from Humanist Manifesto II, the goals of the two are strikingly similar.

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity…Travel restrictions must cease…What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community.[8]

The similarities were not lost on the British people. Brexit was the reaction of a majority of the British people to the progressive imposition of the tenets of humanism promoted by the elected and unelected cultural elites found principally in Europe and North America. These tenets stand in opposition to the nature of man and are destructive to the Christian foundations upon which Western civilization was built.

Humanism is a divisive and flawed view of the world that is the enemy of freedom, contrary to what it means to be human, a hopeless narrative built on a false view of man’s nature and the world, and the principal weapon of Satan that is responsible for the vast majority of misery in the human soul, cultures, and nations.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Amanda Taub, “Brexit, explained: 7 Questions About What It Means and Why It Matters,” The New York Times, June 23, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/world/europe/brexit-britain-eu-explained.html?_r=0 (accessed October 5, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “EU Referendum Results,” BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results (accessed October 5, 2016).
[5] “Brexit fallout: Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn says he won’t resign after no-confidence vote,” Fox News World, June 28, 2016. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/28/brexit-fallout-embattled-labor-party-leader-jeremy-corbyn-loses-confidence-vote.html (accessed October 10, 2016).
[6] Marine Le Pen, “Marine Le Pen: After Brexit, the People’s Spring Is Inevitable,” The New York Times, June 28, 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/marine-le-pen-after-brexit-the-peoples-spring-is-inevitable.html (accessed October 5, 2016).
[7] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1964), pp. 10-12.
[8] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp. 21-23.

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part V

Posted by :admin On : October 7, 2016
0

Category: Abortion, Archives, Christianity

The apostasy of the liberal Protestant churches in the early part of the twentieth century has now entered much of the evangelical church. The fundamentalist churches of that era that stayed true to the fundamentals of New Testament Christianity were demeaned and marginalized in a society that was becoming increasingly secular and humanistic. By the 1940s the fundamentalists emerged as neo-evangelicals and once again engaged the culture with the inerrant truth of God’s word. But as America progressed through the remainder of the century and into the twenty-first century, a large portion of the evangelical church had succumbed to the spirit of the age and slid into apostasy.

The apostasy of Pope Francis described in Parts II through IV of this series centered on the great flashpoints of conflict between the Christian and humanist worldviews. In Part II, the Pope presented salvation as a matter of works, something to be achieved by man on terms that are acceptable to him, be he a Christian or atheist. In Part III, the Pope stated that Christians and Muslims essentially worshipped the same God. In Part IV we saw that the Pope’s words contradict the Bible and the church’s traditional stance that homosexuality was a sin. The extent to which this escalating apostasy has grown is evident in many quarters of the modern evangelical church, and much of this apostasy centers on the teachings of the Church Growth movement and its evangelization through preaching a new cross.

The cross upon which the Son of God was crucified stands at the crossroads of history and the story of mankind. Its stark and demanding message is an irritant in the soul of sinful man. For many its message is too confrontational, an agitant, inconvenient, an offense, something to be mocked or shunned. In modern times the way in which the cross is perceived by many who profess allegiance to Christ has also changed. The message of the cross has been muted if not altogether silenced to minimize its offensiveness in churches filled with people trying to decide if Christianity is right for them. Others have rewritten its message to smooth its abrasiveness and soften its demands by making it a thing of comfort and beauty instead of and instrument of death to self and hope of life eternal. The old message, having been modernized and adapted, seamlessly blends with the world’s fascination with humanistic concepts of self-esteem instead of the reality of the fallen nature of man. The new cross at its core rests on ego and selfishness and is the great enemy of the old cross of Christ.[1]

But preaching a new cross and trying to fit into an increasingly hostile world can make for strange bedfellows. On August 11-12, 2016, the Global Leadership Summit was broadcast by live telecast around the world. Advertisements in print and on the Internet invited people to “join an expected 305,000 leaders from 126 countries who are committed to transforming their communities.” The Global Leadership Summit is an annual event sponsored by the Willow Creek Association (WCA) founded in 1992 by Bill Hybels and Willow Creek Church with the stated goal of serving “…pioneering pastors and leaders through world-class leadership experiences and resources” so that Christian leaders can be inspired, encouraged, and equipped [to] create thriving local churches that redeem their communities for Christ.[2] WCA’s website explains how this is to be accomplished.

WCA’s passion is to help leaders worldwide—men and women—realize God’s vision for their lives, churches and communities. We share ideas and build partnerships. Through The Global Leadership Summit (TGLS), Partners, and WCA Membership we deliver vision and inspiration to resourced regions; and we bring training and opportunity to under-resourced areas.[3]

In addition to the two-day live telecast, other Summit events are to take place throughout the fall at an additional 675+ sites in 125 countries and 59 languages.[4]

From these brief statements about the WCA’s mission and stated goals in conducting the Global Leadership Summit, there appears to be nothing of concern that would cause alarm among Christians. To the contrary, on the surface it appears to support training of Christians for the work of the Great Commission as commanded by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20. But as one digs a little deeper and learns who some of the headline speakers were at the summit, there is great cause for concern. The Global Leadership Summit for 2016 listed thirteen faculty speakers. The first four shown on the website were as follows:

Bill Hybels – Founder and Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church
Melinda Gates – Co-Chair, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Alan Mulally – President and Chief Executive Officer, The Ford Motor Company (2006-2014)
Bishop T. D. Jakes – Founder and Senior Pastor, The Potter’s House

The remaining nine speakers included one other pastor and several authors, professors, business leaders, and consultants. Some of the speakers may be Christians while others may not profess Christ at all. This lineup of speakers was widely advertised on the Summit website and in hundreds of newspaper throughout America and around the world.[5]

But for Christians, the most disturbing member of the faculty was Melinda Gates whose photograph was in the number two position immediately to the right of Bill Hybels. The website biography of Gates reads as follows:

As co-chair of the foundation [the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation], Melinda Gates shapes and approves strategies, reviews results and sets the overall direction of the organization. Her work has led her to focus on empowering women and girls to bring transformational improvements in the health and prosperity of families, communities and societies. After joining Microsoft Corp. in 1987, she helped develop many of the company’s multimedia products. In 1996, Melinda left Microsoft to focus on her philanthropic work and family.[6]

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation endowment is $40.2 billion and provides grants for family planning throughout the United States and in over one hundred countries around the world. From prior to 2009 through 2013, the foundation gave $71 million in grants to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and numerous other state and local Planned Parenthood organizations.[7] In December 2014, Gates attempted to distance her foundation from abortion by saying that it will now only fund the contraception element of Planned Parenthood. But this is the equivalent of filling the contraception pocket of the abortion provider while her friends fill the abortion pocket. This duplicity is exposed through her foundation’s relationship with Warren Buffett. Through the Sarah Thompson Buffett Foundation named after his late wife, Buffett funneled $231 million to Planned Parenthood between 2010 and 2013. Should it come as a surprise that Buffett is also a Gates Foundation trustee, and “helps ‘shape and develop strategies’ for the Foundation. Buffett is also a large contributor to the Gates Foundation.”[8]

Should Melinda Gates activities, friends, and associates have been of concern to Bill Hybels when he invited her to speak at his leadership conference conducted under the banner of his Christian organization? To say other than a resounding “yes” is to ignore his credulity and lack of common sense. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” [1 John 2:15. KJV]

The “world” is a term that is a frequent reference to the vast system of the age. The term refers to many things. It is not limited to the evil, immoral, and sinful pleasures of the world. The “world” also refers to a rebellious spirit that wars against God and His Word. This spirit exists in all human enterprises and activities. Satan opposes God and His people by using the world’s ideas, morality, and philosophies in all spheres of life including government, culture, education, science, art, medicine, music, economic systems, entertainment, mass media, and religion.[9] The words from Donald Stamps’ Bible commentary leave the discerning Christian little doubt as to the meaning of the world system.

Believers must be aware that behind all human enterprises there is a spirit, force, or power that moves against God and His Word, some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree. Finally, the “world” also includes all man-made religious systems and all unbiblical, worldly, or lukewarm “Christian” organizations and churches.

Satan has organized the world into political, cultural, economic, and religious systems that are innately hostile toward God and His people…

Loving the world defiles our fellowship with God and leads to spiritual destruction…To love the world means being in intimate fellowship with and devotion to its values, interest, ways, and pleasures…Believers must have no close or intimate fellowship with those who participate in the world’s evil system, must openly condemn their sin, must be salt and light to them, must love them, and must attempt to win them to Christ.[10]

A key phrase in Global Leadership Summit’s promotional materials is, “We share ideas and build partnerships.” The larger problem is that many in the church are looking to the world for ideas and answers which contain the spirit of the world. Why must many Christian leaders rely on the wisdom of the world when they have access to the wisdom of the ages through the Holy Spirit? The Apostle Paul warned about seeking wisdom from the unchurched.

Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s. [1 Corinthians 3:18-23. RSV]

This does not mean that Christians are opposed to education and self-improvement. Rather, the opposite is true, but we should remember that the foundational source of our knowledge is not worldly wisdom. Rather, the world’s wisdom must always be sifted and judged in light of the biblical revelation, prayer, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. And the Christian’s quest for wisdom and accomplishment of the Great Commission certainly does not include partnering with the world. The Apostle Paul’s letter of instruction to the Corinthians is very clear on this matter.

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God… [2 Corinthians 6:14-16a. RSV] [emphasis added]

One wonders how many Christians among the 305,000 participants at the various Global Leadership Summit locations around the world departed confused or dismayed at the absurdity of having a speaker attempt to teach leadership skills to Christians so they may better do the works commanded by Christ but who personally has funded the deaths of millions of unborn babies.
______

In this series we have looked at specific instances of religious compromisers and false prophets that have risen to leadership within the church during these last days at the end of the age. There are many other instances of apostasy in the modern evangelical church that could be discussed, but time, space, and the reader’s endurance will not permit such discussion. For readers who wish to examine other articles in this website that deal with apostasy, a few of those are listed at the end of this article.

One must ask the question as to why so many evangelical churches have lost their courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice and are no longer confronting a deteriorating culture. Writing almost three quarters of a century ago, the words of A. W. Tozer rightly diagnosed the reasons for the apostate condition of much of American evangelicalism then and now.

Christianity is so entangled with the spirit of the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is whitewashed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers, and those same believers are everlastingly seeking to gain acceptance with the world. By mutual concessions men who call themselves Christians manage to get on with men who have for the things of God nothing but contempt.[11]

Larry G. Johnson

Additional articles on apostasy at culturewarrior.net:

Seduction of the American church
Strange Fire – The church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part I,
Strange Fire – The church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part II
Strange Fire – The churches quest for cultural relevance – Part III
Strange Fire – The churches quest for cultural relevance – Part IV
The Separated Church – Part I
The Separated Church – Part II
The Separated Church – Part III
The Separated Church – Part IV
Growing apostasy in the last days – Part I
Growing apostasy in the last days – Part II
Growing Apostasy in the last days – Part III
Growing Apostasy in the last days – Part IV
Pacifist Christians in the culture wars – Part I
Pacifist Christians in the culture wars – Part II

Sources:

[1] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 274.
[2] “About WCA,” Willow Creek Association, https://www.willowcreek.com/about/ (accessed September 16, 2016).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “Faculty,” The Global Leadership Summit, https://www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/#about (accessed September 16, 2016).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Susan Berry, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations says it will no longer fund abortion,” Brietbart, June 12, 2014. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/12/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-says-it-will-no-longer-fund-abortion/ (accessed September 16, 2016).
[8]Alatheia Nielsen, “Planned Parenthood’s Biggest Donors Gave $374 Million in Four Years,” mrcNewsBusters, July 31, 2015. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alatheia-larsen/2015/07/31/planned-parenthoods-biggest-donors-gave-374-million-four-years (accessed September 16, 2016).
[9] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 578.
[10] Ibid., pp. 578-579.
[11] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers), p. 116.

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part IV

Posted by :admin On : September 30, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Homosexuality

This series of articles deals with the great apostasy in the church during the end of the last days as described by Christ in Matthew 24. Perhaps there is no man alive that has accelerated the church’s descent into apostasy more than Pope Francis. He is aggressively pursuing a progressive, liberal agenda in an attempt to fundamentally change the face of the Catholic Church and its doctrines and teachings, and two recent initiatives reflect his agenda. The first was dealt with in Part III and concerned heretical views of Islam and its relationship with Christianity. This article deals with the actions of the Pope which have dramatically accelerated the ascendancy of the homosexual agenda in both the culture and the church.

Homosexuality

On July 28, 2013, Pope Francis was on a return flight on the papal plane following the XXVII World Youth Day held in Rio de Janeiro. Accompanying the pope were members of the press who were allowed to ask questions during a lengthy press conference during the flight. The final question asked by one of the participants concerned the worldwide news coverage of Monsignor Batista Ricci who had been recently picked to head the troubled Vatican bank. Ricci had been widely accused of homosexual activity during his management of the Pope’s diplomatic office in Uruguay during 1999-2001.[1]

Ricci purportedly had been sexually involved with a man whom Ricci demanded be given a job and room at the Uruguayan papal diplomatic mission. Ricci’s alleged homosexual activities had been widely reported in both Uruguayan and Italian newspapers. The accusations appear to have been well supported by many credible sources (Uruguayan bishops, priests, and laymen) and exhaustive documentation which was made available to Vatican authorities.[2]

The Pope stated that a preliminary investigation had found no wrongdoing by Father Ricci.[3] The Pope attempted to downplay the importance and power of the gay lobby within the Vatican when he said, “There’s a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I’ve never seen it on the Vatican ID card!”[4] However, the Pope took the opportunity to expand his comments to include his view of homosexuality.

When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency (to homosexuality) is not the problem … they’re our brothers.[5] [emphasis added]

The Pope’s now famous (for many, “infamous”) statement that he will not judge gays and lesbians including gay priests in the church appears to challenge the Catholic Church’s foundational doctrines and orthodoxy and stands in stark opposition to a document signed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests.[6] Pope Francis’ position is also in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Catechism which is a document of Catholic religious instruction that explains the beliefs of the church.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[7]

The Pope and the gay lobby within the Vatican conveniently fail to separate the sin of from the person. They also attempt to blur the lines between the tendency toward homosexuality and the sin of homosexual practices. Some Christians have a tendency toward homosexuality but valiantly fight that tendency and adhere to biblical standards of morality regarding sexual activity. The sin of practicing homosexuals separates them from God, and therefore they cannot be brothers or sisters in Christ except through repentance (not merely goodwill) and abstinence.

The meaning of “Judge not, that ye be not judged”

A thoughtful reading of Sermon on the Mount reveals that Jesus condemns the habit of criticizing others while ignoring one’s own faults and brings clarity to the meaning of His words, “judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. [Matthew 7:1-5. RSV]

Jesus is not saying that we are to ignore the sins of others as Pope Francis’ laconic “Who am I to judge?” suggests. In rendering judgement, we must first make a distinction between judging fellow believers and sinners.

Bringing correction to fellow Christians

A Christian is not prohibited from influencing the behavior of other Christians who are in error or sin (v.3: the speck in our brother’s eye). However, the Christian must first submit himself to God’s righteous standard (v. 3: consider the log that is in our own eye). Also, such hoped-for influence must always be done with the goal of seeing the offender return to God and His righteous pathways. However, the great majority of people (both in and out of the church) fail to see that these verses do not prohibit judgement and correction which is a matter of church discipline and necessary to protect God’s reputation, maintain moral purity, insure doctrinal integrity, and to make possible the restoration of the wayward Christian’s soul and Christlikeness.[8]

Christians and the judgment of sinners

When a Christian attempts to influence the behavior of sinners, the gospel must be lovingly and graciously presented. The Christian’s judgment of the sinner’s condition is not based on the Christian’s opinion or theories but on what the Bible says about man’s sinful condition. Christians are called upon to judge between right and wrong based on morality and truth as revealed in God’s word, but again such judgement must be done in a spirit of love, kindness, and concern for the sinner, not in a spirit of condemnation.

Much of the world and the church have adopted the humanistic definitions of love and tolerance in which God’s love is so vast that he will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. God’s nonjudgmental love is presumed to be so great that sin will be tolerated. In other words, love and doing good is all that matters to a tolerant nonjudgmental God. But this is a false message that is causing millions to miss an eternity in heaven with Jesus and will result in an eternity in hell.

Pope Francis’ “Who am I to Judge?” effectively implies that the unrepentant, practicing homosexual can have communion and on-going fellowship as a member of the Catholic Church if they “accept the Lord and have goodwill.” But the Bible says that a person will receive forgiveness if they repent and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord. This means that goodwill is not a substitute for turning from sin because anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. Therefore, the church cannot teach that a penitent may find Jesus as their Savior but not the Lord of their lives. The presence of sin is ruinous of man’s relationship with God, and the only alternative requires repentance and turning from sin.

It is without a doubt that the Pope knew his comments on homosexuality would generate an avalanche of worldwide media attention and change the landscape with regard to the biblical understanding of homosexuality in both the church and culture at large. A recent example is Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s use of Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” to support his view that practicing homosexuals were not in sinful relationships. He went on to say that the first chapter of Genesis supported his view of homosexuality.

I think it’s [the Catholic Church] going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind and said, “It is very good.” Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.[9]

The Pope’s “Who am I to judge?” was just another humanistic, progressivist brick tossed through the windows of the church to weaken the authority of the Bible in matters of truth, doctrine, and morality in order to make the church more inclusive and accommodating to the spirit of the world.
______

In Parts II, III, and IV we have shown the specifics of Pope Francis’ apostasy: promotion of socialistic-Marxist systems of economy and governance centered on humanism and branded as “a new humanity”; advancement of universalism in which all roads lead to heaven if paved with good works; promotion of heretical concepts of salvation devoid of repentance and acceptance of Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior; calls for merging Christianity with false religions in the name of peace and unity; and the acceptance and toleration of sin within the church such as legitimization of the sin of homosexuality.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “The Pope says he will not judge priest for being gay,” The Guardian, July 29, 2013.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/29/pope-francis-gay-priests (accessed September 10, 2016).
[2] Matthew Hoffman, “Uruguayan newspaper confirms accusations of homosexual conduct by Vatican bank appointee,” LifeSiteNews.com, July 23, 2013. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uruguayan-newspaper-confirms-accusations-of-homosexual-conduct-by-vatican-b (accessed September 15, 2016).
[3] “The Pope says he will not judge priest for being gay,” The Guardian, July 29, 2013.
[4] John L. Allen, Jr. and Hada Messia, “Pope Francis on gays: ‘Who am I to Judge?’” CNN, July 29, 2013. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-on-gays-who-am-i-to-judge/ (accessed September 20, 2016).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Steve Jalsevac, “Evidence of a trail of wreckage from Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?’” LifeSiteNews.com, June 23, 2016. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/evidence-of-a-trail-of-wreckage-from-pope-francis-who-am-i-to-judge (accessed September 10, 2016).
[7] “Chastity and Homosexuality,” The Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM (accessed September 15, 2016).
[8] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), pp. 16, 43.
[9] Michael Brown, “Why Tim Kaine Is Wrong About Genesis Endorsing Homosexual Acts,” The Christian Post, September 12, 2016. http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-tim-kaine-is-wrong-about-genesis-endorsing-homosexual-acts-169462/ (accessed September 23, 2016).

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part III

Posted by :admin On : September 23, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Islam

The apostasy of Pope Francis has accelerated both in frequency and severity since the beginning of his papacy. This has caused a great turmoil within the Catholic Church between conservative dissidents and liberal supporters of the Francis papacy. His words and actions have caused growing alarm among many Catholics, and resistance to the Pope’s liberalization of the church is widespread among strict conservatives in the powerful Catholic hierarchy. This riff is being described by many as a culture war within the Catholic Church. American born Cardinal Raymond Burke is a staunch conservative and veteran Vatican bureaucrat who was recently demoted by Pope Francis. Burke has continued to openly warn the Pope that papal power “is not absolute…The pope does not have the power to change teaching doctrine.” In spite of the vast powers of the Pope, Burke has said that church doctrine serves as a kind of constitution from which a Pope may not depart.[1]

The culture war within the Catholic Church is being fought between the Pope’s progressive allies who see him as a revolutionary who is upending church tradition. Conservatives say the Pope is subtly and implicitly backing liberal church leaders who are pushing for radical changes. The conservative view was confirmed when at a 2014 meeting of senior bishops the Pope appeared to give special latitude to the liberals pressing his progressive agenda. At this meeting he challenged those defending church orthodoxy by saying, “Let no one say, ‘This you cannot say.’ ” The Pope’s tacit support of the liberal’s progressive agenda continues to be evident due to his failure to silence Catholic priests and bishops that are speaking and doing things that contradict church teachings about same-sex unions and granting communion to those who are living in adultery. As one official said, “So the inference is that this is what the pope wants.” Conservative opponents of the Pope’s agenda say they are being unfairly labeled as enemies of the Pope because they are defending “the real teachings of the church.”[2]

The extent to which the current conservative Catholic criticism has become public is highly unusual. One example is Providence Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin’s open letter to the members of his diocese in which he said, “In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice, one that the world needs to hear.”[3] Bishop Tobin’s comments are very similar to the sentiments expressed by a growing number of American evangelical Protestants who are questioning the teachings and methods of church growth movement that stands in opposition to biblical Christianity and the long-held doctrines of the church.

For most of his papacy, the Pope’s support of the progressive agenda has been largely a behind-the-scenes effort. However, in recent times the Pope has taken the lead in utterly transforming the Catholic Church. Two recent initiatives reflect his desire to fundamentally change the face of the Catholic church and its doctrines. The first will be dealt with in this article and the second in Part IV of this series on the great apostasy in the last days.

Islam

In an address to Catholic followers on February 21, 2016, Pope Francis made the following statements:

Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. [emphasis added]

This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith. Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each other’s beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God.[4]

There can be no mistake about the meaning and intent of Pope Francis’ words. He has said that Jesus, Jehovah, and Allah are the same and that the Qur’an and its teachings are just as valid as the Bible. But the entities of Jesus and Allah are not distinctly the same across the world. To claim Jesus and Allah are the same is equivalent to saying that Adolph Hitler and Winston Churchill were distinctly the same entities because they were leaders during World War II. But the beliefs and actions of Churchill and Hitler and the people they represented were vastly different and formed no basis for unity through a merger of beliefs. And the differences between Jesus of the Bible and Allah of the Qur’an are infinitely greater.

Trinitarian God v. Unipersonal Allah

The God of the Bible is one being and three in person. A being and a person are not the same. A being is a characteristic or quality that makes it what it is. The who has to do with the person. God’s characteristic (the what) is that he is the supreme God. The personhood of God (the who) can be found in His three persons or personalities. Notice that “persons” (plural) allow for relationships to exist. This is critical for man to understand himself, God, and their relationship. The Qur’an denies the Trinity (Surah 5:74, 172). Even in Muhammad’s denial, he was mistaken in what he believed comprised the Christian Trinity. Muhammad believed the Christian Trinity was God, Jesus, and Mary as opposed to the Bible’s teaching that the Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Composite oneness v. Absolute Oneness

In Christianity, the central theme of the entire Bible focuses on relationship and confirms the importance of His Trinitarian nature. Expressed another way, it is a composite oneness, one heart beating within three persons. The Trinitarian relationship is about love and relationship which implies a dynamic movement or flowing of self-giving love between the three persons within God in which each exalts, communes with, and defers to the others.[5] These actions create and define loving relationships.

The Qur’an in Surah 112 commands, “Say: He is Allah, the One, the Only; The Eternal, the Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” The verses weld together two fundamental doctrines of Islam: (1) Allah is an absolute, undifferentiated unity and (2) “in his unity, Allah is utterly independent of anything. He is self-subsisting and self-sufficient.”

Allah’s aloofness and independence makes it impossible for man to relate to him and impossible for the human heart and mind to understand anything about him apart from the superficial. Although Allah is personal in that he is described as a conscious being with a will, his personality is hidden and cannot be known to any meaningful degree by mankind. Therefore, it is not possible for his followers to have a personal, loving relationship with him.[6]

Because of this description of Allah as a self-subsisting and self-sufficient entity absolutely independent of anything, it is impossible for Allah to express or give love. His nature will not allow such. Therefore, Allah is unipersonal and his ultra-unified, self-contained, self-subsisting, self-sufficient, and self-centered being removes any hope of love flowing from his nature in spite of Mohammad’s claims in the Qur’an.

God’s love v. Allah’s love

God’s nature is love, and He commanded His followers to unconditionally reflect His love to others in this world. “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” [Luke 6:35-36, RSV]

Contrast the love of the God of the Bible with Allah’s love as described in the Qur’an.[7] Allah of the Qur’an does not love his enemies nor does he love the unlovable, and the Qur’an is very specific in its directives as to the harsh and violent treatment of infidels, the disobedient, and evil-doers. The Qur’an specifically states in numerous verses that Allah’s love is restricted to those that deserve it, a concept that mirrors the very human reaction to love only those who love us.[8] Listed below are just three examples of this dichotomy found in the Qur’an.

Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity: for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked. [Surah 2:276. Qur’an]

Say: “obey Allah and His Apostle”: but if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith. [Surah 3:32. Qur’an]

As to those who believe and work righteousness, Allah will pay them (in full) their reward; but Allah loveth not those who do wrong. [Surah 3:57. Qur’an]

______

The Qur’an states that Jesus is not the begotten Son of God but a prophet; Jesus did not die on the cross for man’s sin; and that the Muslim’s road to heaven is found in works and obedience to the Qur’an and Sharia law. It is a religion whose God is distant and impersonal. One must ask what kind of Islamic heaven it will be in the absence of an impersonal Allah.

Even our cursory examination of the differences between the natures and love of God and Allah reveal stark and irreconcilable differences between the two religions and prohibit a “merging of faiths” and cannot unite us as “people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith.” That is because Islam is a false religion whose unrepentant followers will end in hell. There is only one way to heaven, and the words of Jesus point to that direction, “…I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” [John 14:6. KJV] The Bishop of Rome has plainly identified God as being the same for both Islam and Christianity, and he has equated the lies of the Qur’an with the truth of the Bible. These are heresies of the highest magnitude.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Anthony Faiola, “Conservative dissent is brewing inside the Vatican,” Washington Post, September 7, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-conservative-revolt-is-brewing-inside-the-vatican/2015/09/07/1d8e02ba-4b3d-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html (accessed September 5, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mellisa Ferrari, “Pope Francis to followers: The Bible and the Koran are the same,” USA Politics Today, February 23, 2016. http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/pope-francis-to-followers-koran-and-holy-bible-are-the-same/ (accessed September 6, 2016).
[5] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, (New York: Dutton, 2008), pp. 214-215.
[6] Abdu H. Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), pp. 159-161.
[7] All quotations from the Qur’an are from the textless edition of the English translation of the Holy Qur-an: A. Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur-an, Published by: Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah, Al Nabawiya.
[8] Murray, Grand Central Question – Answering the Critical Concerns of Mayor Worldviews, pp. 231-232.