What is the definition of ‘liberal’? Dictionary.com gives 13 points, I cite 6 of those points:
2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts:a liberal donor.
How about ‘conservative’? Dictionary.com gives 12 definitions, I cite 5:
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness:conservative suit.
7.having the power or tendency to conserve or preserve.
9.a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
10.a supporter of conservative political policies.
These are generic definitions, which means at best, they are superficial! As you can plainly read, both definitions are excellent, neither liberal nor conservative definitions reject Biblical principles. Does this mean the two groups have the same values? This can be answered only when we understand the definitions of both groups change when applied to actual people. In other words, the two groups do not have the same values. On a practical level, which means how these definitions are actually fleshed-out, i.e.viewed in people’s actions or lives, the people of these two groups could not be more different! As a matter of fact, their actions are as different as day from night. Yet, this is why the actual philosophy, not the actions/behaviors, of the people who call themselves Liberals and Conservatives is so tricky! I repeat, on the philosophical level, both groups possess--at least what appears to be--godly practical principles; yet, on a practical level, they are as distant from one another as East is from the West!
First, on the most fundamental philosophical level ‘contemporary’ Conservatives, desire to conserve or preserve the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Why do I use “contemporary Conservatives”? Because this has not been true, and is still not absolutely true, of ‘every person’ who elects the title of ‘Conservative’. I repeat, this is what makes these ‘political’ titles so tricky!! For example, historically, Southern Democrats were a.k.a. “Conservative Democrats”. They were totally different from ‘contemporary’ conservatives because their desire was to conserve their ‘way’ of life, which meant White supremacy, such as Jim Crow laws. Therefore, Conservative Democrats and Contemporary Conservatives are complete opposites. Remember, because these are political titles and not Biblical titles, they can change over time!
Second, the ‘historical Liberal’ has two names:
The two are synonymous, and at face value, both claim the previous Dictionary.com definition of liberal. On the other hand however, if we examine the ‘1828 Webster’s Dictionary of liberal’, we find nine entries:
1.Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.
2.Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.
3.Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one’s own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.
4.General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.
5.Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts.
6.Large; profuse; as a liberal discharge of matter by secretions or excretions.
7.Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.
8.Not mean; not low in birth or mind.
9.Licentious; free to excess.
Like Dictionary.com, the first eight entries of the 1828 Webster’s dictionary are wonderful, any authentic Christian could claim these principles-—for they are Biblically sound. However, the ninth entry is ‘THE’ actual, literal, spiritual--behavior of the liberal/progressive. In reality, considering the 9th entry of “liberal”, it is perfectly described in Galatians 5:13: “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” This verse teaches that every human aspires to freedom—which is God’s freedom, the Creator of all freedom. Yet, freedom requires direction. In other words, without direction, we can become so enamored with the word freedom so as to use it to promote the flesh. This is what Galatians 5:13 means by the words: “opportunity for the flesh”. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that ‘the flesh’ is driven by the sin nature(Rom7:17,18,23), and must be kept in control daily(1Cor9:27). But…it cannot be controlled apart from the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit(Rom8:5-8). Very simply, because humans have a sin nature, we do not have an absolute freedom! What does that mean? God has given mankind the freedom to choose anything but sin! Incredibly, the choices of God are infinite, because He is infinite. Yet, when a man uses his freedom to choose sin, he becomes blinded and enslaved, which ironically, unwittingly, and dramatically, reduces, and even destroys his freedom!
Therefore, the definition for ‘Liberal’ in Webster’s Dictionary is actually correct.
The only thing worse than not reading a book in the last ninety days is not reading a book in the last ninety days and thinking that it doesn't matter. -Jim Rohn
In my first tidbit, I argued:
1.“man’s philosophies are at least as dangerous to God’s kingdom as
2.“theology gives birth to philosophy”
3.“Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals all derive their
philosophy from a deity!”
The foundational text supporting the above propositions is:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. -Colossians 2:8(NAS)
This incredible text declares on one side is Christ or the Word of God, and on the other side are the i.philosophies, ii.deceptions, iii.traditions of men, and iv.the elementary principles of the world.
Another visual looks like this:
Christ vs World/Enemy of God
Word of God vs i.man’s philosophy
iii.traditions of men
iv.elementary principles of
The result of rejecting Christ and adopting man’s philosophy is to be “taken captive” (esomai & sulagogeo), which means to fall; and to lead away, to seduce, to spoil, captivity. The truth of Colossians 2:8 is the foundation for honestly evaluating the philosophies and behaviors of Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, and Conservatives.
First, I decided on these four areas because their beliefs and actions currently dominate our culture! On the most fundamental level, their positions are often referred to as the ‘Left’ and ‘Right’. Second, it is critical to note that all the above positions are occupied by men with sin natures. This means, over time, each position has changed--sometimes for the better or worse. I repeat, there is no political party that has ever perfectly aligned with God’s will! Over the decades and centuries, as men and women come and go through the election process, there have been good and evil people on every side---which is THE reason for the contemporary confusion and deception!
Third, evil has always been present because man’s nature is evil, however what makes this particular moment different from the past is the time in which we now live. We are unequivocally living in the last day, which means men will intensify their evil, which forces God to intensify His wrath. My objective here is to uncover the philosophy of man which drives man’s current push to evil.
Finally, if I had to offer one fundamental component allowing us to identify the evil of this day, it would be 2Thessalonians 2:3, which declares, before the rise of Anti-Christ there will be a great falling away from the faith, a.k.a. apostasy. Very simply, falling away from the faith, means falling away from the Word of God, i.e.the Bible. In other words, because faith comes by hearing God’s word(Rom10:17), as people abandon the Bible, they will fall away from the faith.
Here is the key: as we look at the different positions you will be able discern its good or evil by its rejection of scripture or alignment with scripture!
Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out.
No person possesses salvation, i.e. is born-again, through a political party—but by grace through faith (Rom2:8,9)…alone! However, what I have learned over the years is the possibility of the salvation of the spirit man, yet the mind can still be tainted by the world, i.e.conformed, and in need of transformation (Rom12:1-3).
Over the years I have found the following truism: in general, liberal Christians claim the Democrat party, while conservative Christians claim the Republican party (or are independent). There may be some exceptions, however and I repeat, the vast majority of the time I have found this truism factual.
Why is this even important? Because, the mind conformed to the world’s thinking can be as dangerous as the unbeliever! Why is the unbeliever dangerous? For two reasons:
1.First, because the Bible declares, “… your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour (1Pet 5:8). This passage lays the spiritual foundation for the ‘end’ behavior of sinners, which is confirmed in Psalms 37:32: The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him. This does not mean that every unbeliever wants to kill you because you are saved!!! Yet, because Satan is the father of the unbeliever(Jn8:43,44), and Satan’s role is to kill, steal, and destroy (Jn10:10), if that unbeliever is left without the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit(2Thes2:7), where he is fully given over to Satan, then Psalms 37:32 absolutely becomes a possibility!! Jesus said, “you shall be hated by all men for my names sake” (Mat10:22). Well, what do you think people do when they hate you? 1John 3:15 answers: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer…”! Once again, this is confirmed in John 8:44: “You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning…”
2.The second reason the unbeliever can be dangerous is because his actions and mind cannot honor God. The mind of the unbeliever is carnal/fleshly, which means it becomes impossible for ‘a man of the flesh’ to do the will of God (Rom8:5); once again, the consequence is death (Rom8:6-8). Why? One reason is if the carnal man gains power, i.e.rulership over others, his sin can bring down the wrath of God (Pro11:11; Pro29:2).
On the contrary, and very sadly, if a ‘believer’ i.e. a Christian, does not renew his/her mind, but chooses to think like the unbeliever, he too can arose the wrath of God! Therefore, how any one person thinks--righteous or unrighteous—in every area of life…is important! Allow me to repeat myself for special emphasis: The authentic Christian ought to be concerned about not only how Christians think--himself and other Christians (Rom12:1-3)—but also how the sinner thinks (Ps119:136; Ps51:13; Mat28:18-20)
Moving forward. Colossians 2:8(NAS) teaches that the philosophies of the world can take people captive*: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
Sin takes people captive, because at minimum, it both blinds and enslaves man. Because of sin, mankind cannot understand God nor His creation, and his enslavement to sin hinders his ability to carry out God’s great calling in the earth.
This passage also teaches that religions of the world, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are ‘not’ all that oppose Christ…but man’s philosophies can as well. In other words again, Colossians 2:8 teaches that man’s philosophies are at least as dangerous to God’s kingdom as false religions.
Furthermore, Colossians 2:8 is one of the verses that teaches philosophies* are theological in nature! In other words, I say it like this:
-“all philosophy originates in theology” or,
-“theology gives birth to philosophy” or,
-“what one believes about life originates in one’s belief about
There are no exceptions…this is an absolute truth!**
Here is the key: Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals*** all derive their philosophies from a deity!
You won’t want to miss one of these tidbits!
*I define philosophy as what a person thinks about life.
** Even atheists have a god: self!
*** Liberals and Progressives are synonymous.
If you want to amend your errors, you must begin by amending your philosophy. -Jim Rohn
In February, Black History month 2019, I visited a class of Christian high school seniors who were discussing race. The class of approximately 25, was predominantly white, with about 5 blacks. The teacher had me present for commentary because I was both a Christian and black.
The question directing the conversation that day was: How would Martin Luther King have interpreted the controversial topic: ‘police target blacks’? After every student’s tally was recorded on the chalkboard, the entire class--every white and every black--declared that MLK would in fact have affirmed the idea that ‘police target blacks’. I was the only dissenter!
The disagreement with my answer was written across the faces of several students. However, after I cited facts for my position, one of the white students rose-up and accused me of being a Republican! Very interesting, I thought. I mentioned no political party in my facts, why is the position ‘police do not target blacks’ considered Republican?
I offer 2 reasons:
1.In reality, the statement: ‘police target blacks’, is either true or false based upon facts…not feelings! Therefore, if we examine the facts, it is impossible for any honest person to hold to: ‘police target blacks’. See here, here, here, here, here. Honesty is a paramount value for every Christian! Why then did all these high schools kids believe MLK, who was first a preacher of the gospel, would agree with the assertion? For one of two reasons: i.They did not know the facts; or, ii.They took the ‘safe position’. And, what is the ‘safe position’? Because MLK was black; and because he was the embodiment of black civil rights, he has to agree that ‘police target blacks’ today, because police targeted blacks in the past! The ‘safe position’ rests upon the unwritten liberal rule: if you are white, in order to avoid being labeled a racist; or an Uncle Tom if your black, you must never say, do, or be accused of anything--publicly or privately--that does not genuflect to black victimhood! In other words, all non-racists must believe: past and present blacks are victims of systemic white supremacy!
2.It is no secret that the overwhelming majority of blacks are Democrats. It is also no secret that academia and media aggressively market the Republican party as the party ‘for’ white people, which means it is inherently racist. So, let me get this straight, in spite of the ‘fact’ of ‘White Privilege’, which means all whites have privilege; and in spite of the fact that whites possess Implicit Bias (IB), which means all whites are innately racist—aka “Whiteness”; and in spite of the fact that the Democrat Party is predominantly white, the Republican Party is the party of white racism!! Try to explain that one!
Therefore…for all whites (excluding white Democrats of course), to avoid the job ending, business destroying, reputation destruction, unpardonable label of ‘racist’ (excluding white Democrats of course), they must pledge allegiance to the Democrat party! On the other side of same coin, in order to retain one’s cultural blackness, which means to be a ‘real’ black, and avoid the label of Uncle Tom, blacks must also walk lock-step with the Democrat party!
First, these unwritten rules for whites, blacks, Democrats and Republicans presently sum-up the ‘politically correct’ spirit pervading America! And second, these rules can never be rescinded because they rest upon ‘color’, i.e.race. In other words, as long as a white person is white, the rules apply. Or said another way, a white person can change the rules only when he/she can change his/her whiteness! Of course, the rules are not enforced upon white Democrats!
Finally, allow me to add one more point to help elucidate why a teenager* would bring-up the Republican party in that scenario. God created mankind with a social need, which the Bible calls fellowship (koinonia), therefore all ages experience a desire to be accepted and wanted. However, as we have seen, this desire begins well before one’s senior year (age 17-18) in high school. Therefore, when the contemporary societal racial pressure to conform, is added to this social innate need, it can quickly multiply the pressure to yield! Tragically, yielding to this pressure to conform destroys hope, which develops into anxiety, and other mental health issues.
The Bible declares the wages of sin is death(Rom 3:23)! Death is not only physical, but spiritual and mental. With the kind of contemporary social pressure from media, academia and entertainment** to conform to both racial and sexual unbiblical and unnatural liberal values, is there any wonder why the mental health industry is booming?!?!
*He had to learn this from somewhere…even in his youth!
**The unholy trinity!
Economic disaster begins with a philosophy of doing less and wanting more.-Jim Rohn
I find it very interesting that I have often been accused of “preaching politics”. What is meant by “preaching politics”? It means my accuser:
1.makes a distinction between preaching a sermon(preaching the
Bible), and a political message.
2.believes I support my political party over their political party…from
Therefore, my accuser concludes I’m guilty of violating either or both of the previous points.
First, in early America, it was common for preachers to “preach politics”. Before any election in a given year, colonial preachers called special services to address both the life and policies of those seeking political office. These sermons were so common they were called ‘Election day sermons’. Historically, we have many records of these sermons because colonial preachers wrote-out their sermons, and read them to their congregations!
Second, there are no scriptural passages forbidding “preaching politics”.
Third, Nathan the prophet’s rebuke of David for adultery(2Sam12); the prophecy that the Messiah would carry government on His shoulders(Is9:6;); John the Baptist’s rebuke of Herod for adultery(Mk6:18); Jesus’ rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt23), are a few among many Bible passages where men of God spoke to political authorities.
Fourth, ‘preaching politics’ became a national problem beginning only in the late 1950’s when Democrat Senator Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) attached “pork” to a bill preventing preachers from addressing “politics” from the pulpit. A preacher attacked him during his reelection bid, and he retaliated by passing legislation making all such actions going forward illegal. The law now states that a violating church can lose its 501c3 status, which designates it a non-profit, preventing people from writing-off any donations on their tax returns. In other words, violation of LBJ’s law can have huge financial consequences for the church!
What is most interesting however, is that the term ‘preaching politics’ is impossible to define! How is it then enforced? History reveals it has been almost exclusively politically enforced! For example, to this day---either black or white Democrat politicians often appear in ‘Black churches’, to speak to congregations—which is a direct violation of LBJ’s law. However, it is extremely rare for a Republican politician to address a church. Why? Because that church would jeopardize their 501c3 status! This is an irrefutable fact!
Now back to my topic. I find it most interesting ‘when’ I am accused of ‘preaching politics’. The accusations most often fly during two times:
1.When I preach against the sins of abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, transgenderism, or ‘contemporary’* racism. In other words, if I call the previous behaviors sin, I am accused of “preaching politics”!
2.The second time is when I mention the word “liberal” from the pulpit. At times, I will call-out liberals as responsible for promoting the previously mentioned sins.
What I also find interesting is ‘how’ I am accused! In other words, what is the criteria used to convict me of ‘preaching politics’? Following is the deciding principle: certain positions/topics are re-categorized and re-designated as ‘political’; so that when that position or topic is mentioned, the person who mentions it--is now designated as political!
What I have found sadly true is that those who accuse me of ‘preaching politics’, do not consider whether what I say is Biblical(theological), because in their minds, they take-sides with those** who have re-defined my point as political! For example, homosexuality. Because the Bible clearly declares homosexuality sin***; the only way for a Christian, or a person who calls themself a Christian, to support a political party which promotes homosexuality as morally good, is to remove the behavior from the category of theology(Bible), and re-categorize it as political!!!
Let’s take another example: abortion. There have been times in the past, when I preached against the horrendous evil of abortion****, that I have been accused of being a Republican! Why? First, the Republican Party holds to a pro-life party platform position, i.e.considers abortion murder. Second, the person accusing me is a member of the Democrat party, which holds to a party platform that abortion is a woman’s right. So, which is right? Resolving the issue becomes a two-fold dilemma:
1.Do I consider this a theological/Biblical problem?
2.Do I consider this a political problem, i.e.Republican vs Democrat?
Sadly, for many ‘liberal’ Christians***** in order to justify their allegiance to the Democrat party, which supports abortion, simply reject what the Bible declares about abortion.
In their minds, they can accuse me of “preaching politics” because they have re-categorized abortion as political which NOW makes the matter their personal opinion verses my personal opinion!
The problem is that this thinking rejects God’s opinion, i.e. God’s word, in favor of man’s opinion! Anytime man’s opinion is chosen over God’s word, it’s called idolatry—plain and simple!
In conclusion, theology drives philosophy! This means, every person derives their philosophy of life from their theology, i.e. their view of God. If a person, chooses to call good what God calls evil, or call evil what God calls good(Is5:20), that person actually declares allegiance to their god…self! I repeat, this is idolatry!
Charles G. Finney(1792-1875), a Presbyterian minister, and leader of the second Great Awakening in America, who was president of Oberlin College(1851-1866) in Ohio, one of the first colleges formed to educate blacks, wrote:
"The time has come for Christians to vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them...Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to their country as a part of their duty to God. God will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics."
*This is what I call “liberal racism”.
**Who are primarily academia, media, and entertainment.
***Lev18:22; Lev20:13; Rom1:26-28; 1Corinthians 6:9; Jude 7
****Gen25:22; Jer1:5; Ps139:13,14; Lu1:36,41,44.
*****Remember, liberalism is a doctrine of atheism, so you have to decide if this is possible.
The greatest gift you can give to somebody is your own personal development. I used to say, "If you will take care of me, I will take care of you." Now I say, "I will take care of me for you if you will take care of you for me" – Jim Rohn
I’m happy to report…the church is NOT a “non-essential”!!! As a matter of fact, liberals do not get to assign any designation to the church or place restrictions on us because the first amendment declares: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion; nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Period! I had to get that off my chest! Now to my tidbit!!
The idea of the ‘Separation of the church and state’ is a Biblical doctrine!!! When Anglican Priest Richard Hooker (1554-1600), created the term he used it to describe an age-old principle…in the Bible!!! He derived the doctrine from scriptures like Matthew 22:17-21; 1Samuel 13:11-14; 1Kings13:1-6. In other words, the purpose of the Bible doctrine of the ‘Separation of church and state’ was not as liberals contend, to remove God* from the state!!** On the contrary, because the Creator God sovereignly gives purpose to all, He gives the state its’ purpose, and the church its’ purpose. The doctrine declares the two purposes are not to be mixed-up; in other words, the separation of Church and State, is the separation of their purposes! Actually, the original God-designed purpose of the ‘Separation of the Church and State’ was to help clarify how the two are supposed to work-together to accomplish God’s purposes! For example, as two people in a marriage are unique, yet they are purposed to work together toward a common objective; so too, although the church and state are unique, they are designed to work together to glorify God!!
Therefore, how does the Church and State work together to defeat the Coronavirus? Here you go:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
1.God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine
upon us; Selah.
2.That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among
3.Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee.
3.Pray for the sick. -Mark 16:15-19; James5:14-16. In other words, to heal
4.Care for the sick. -Matt 25:34-40; Is58:10-12; Eze 34:4;
5.Encourage the church and the state, through preaching the Word of
6.Evangelizing the lost (Mat28:18-20)
The government has its responsibility too*** (not in order of importance):
1.to determine a course of action; to set a vision for victory. The plan should include how the
nation will move back to prosperity, once we have overcome.
2.to organize and disperse assistance over affected areas
3.to facilitate the way for scientists to find a cure (Jer33:3)
4.to help health-workers. To ensure they have supplies, and proper rest.
5.to investigate the origin, and to determine a penalty of justice
6.to execute that justice on culprits (Rom13:1-4)****
*or the Bible
**The very fact that liberals even use the Bible doctrine of the’ Separation of church and state’
at all reveals their utter hypocrisy. You can’t use a Bible doctrine to remove either God or His
word! That is apex of irrational thinking!
***Not exhaustive. These are all I could think of as of this writing.
****Remember, the state’s authority also originates in God!
In every moment, the quality of your life is on the line. In each, you are either fully
alive or relatively dead.
The Bible prophecies the rise of the ‘The Beast’ (Anti-christ), to whom God will give authority over the world (Rev13:3-5,8,14,16-18) as head of a one-world government…but only for a period of time—Thank God! What I have found very fascinating over the past 40 years of ministry is the attempt to understand ‘how’ the Anti-Christ will come to power. After the revelation of the Coronavirus, a few more pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place.
Following are four pieces of the puzzle I understood prior to Coronavirus:
1.Hitler is like a predecessor to the Anti-Christ. For example, Hitler caused the Jews to take his mark on their hands and arms. Like the Tribulation, World War II lasted 7 years, 1938-45. Like the AntiChrist, Hitler tried to annihilate the Jews.
2.Over 10 years ago, the Lord led me through a 5-year study Nazi Germany. One of the many things God taught me was how Hitler came to power. In short, the Weimar government was liberal, and although Hitler hated liberalism--because he believed it to be soft; he used it to take power. One of the fundamental components associated with liberalism is toleration*. Yet, if you tolerate everything, you will eventually tolerate the thing that destroys you. The Weimar government tolerated Nazism, which ultimately destroyed it. The contemporary world is literally running after liberalism, which like Hitler, the Anti-Christ will use to usurp power and impose a one-world government.
3.The Anti-christ will be a muslim. To understand this incredible truth please read the ‘Islamic Anti-christ’ by Joel Richardson. As a teaser, you will find that their Mahdi, as described in the Quran, is the Biblical Anti-Christ.
4.Even though liberalism boasts of toleration, they love Islam, which is by far ‘THE’ most intolerant religion and philosophy in the world…this fact alone demonstrates liberalism’s amazing delusion! What is also very interesting, is how both liberalism and Islamic nations accept Communism/Socialism, even though Communism is atheistic—for example Iraq.
What I have learned from the Coronavirus is that a crisis like this can almost instantly bring the world to its knees, where a one-world government is considered the only answer. For example, this virus has the potential not only to infect every person on earth, which would obviously destroy the economy because sick people can’t work!
Because liberalism’s number one priority is political power, they are watching closely how the Coronavirus crisis is handled. From this they will learn how to use another crisis to assume dictatorial power! For example, like Global warming!!!
You don’t believe it? How about the words of liberal Rahm Emanuel, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” This simple statement can only have one meaning—a crisis can be used to benefit those who think like him. Second, recently Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C. declared to the House Democrats that this catastrophe (Coronavirus) is "a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision." To what vision do you think he refers? The vision of taking back political power! In other words, he advocates not to use our traditional system of voting to assume power—he is declaring it’s much easier to use a crisis! Third, the Republicans and Democrats joined together to give away 2 trillion dollars—where individual people will be given money by the government. Two comments: i.America is 20 trillion in debt, where did we get two trillion dollars to give away? ii.By this example, there is no reason when liberals regain power that they cannot invent a crisis in order to make all Americans financially dependent upon the government! I repeat, for example Global warming!
Or, how about the article: “The Religious Right's Hostility to Science Is Crippling Our Response to the Coronavirus.” which was originally titled: “The Road to Coronavirus hell was paved by Evangelicals.” The title says it all! According to liberal author Katherine Stewart, the spread of Coronavirus is the fault of, not on the Chinese, but evangelicals! Therefore, now that the evangelicals are responsible for Coronavirus, i.e. a crisis, government force will be necessary to control the churches, even if it means the violation of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishing of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. However, to violate the First Amendment, the government will need to change the constitution! How can they do it without the 2/3 of government approval? By using the right crisis!! Now we are seeing Representative Clyburn’s words come alive right before our eyes: “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision."
If you think my idea of a one-world government is far-fetched, please read the following recent news articles. First, “The Guardian” published a piece called, “Gordon Brown calls for global government to tackle coronavirus”. Gordon Brown is the former Prime Minister of Britain, who calls for a one-world government to handle Coronavirus. Second, liberal Politico news agency published a piece called “Coronavirus Will Change the World Permanently. Here’s How.” In the second paragraph, the writer declares: “…But crisis moments also present opportunity…” The obvious question is opportunity for what? Well, the underlying tone of article, which includes input from “34 big thinkers”, or ‘experts’---is that we need government to take a bigger and greater role in resolving all crisis!!! On the contrary, the degree or amount of government authority permitted in America was not only ‘THE’ major concern of our Founding Fathers, but more importantly, big government is condemned by God! The Bible calls is idolatry! When Israel desired a king (authoritarianism) like the other nations around them, God instructed Samuel:“And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they
say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”
In other words, THE sinful propensity of all human forms of government is to usurp God’s role, i.e. to become God to the people! On the contrary, only a wise people, who take seriously the Word of God, can prevent this tragedy. Presently, liberalism is THE threat to usurp authority in America ending with ‘The Beast’s’ one-world government!
“Discover your uniqueness; then discipline yourself to develop it.” -Jim Sundberg
By using the term ‘separation of church and state’ in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, did Thomas Jefferson intend to create a secular society? Let’s continue investigating TJ’s ‘real’ thoughts, life, and heart on Christianity.
4.In 1779, after becoming Governor of Virginia, TJ introduced several bills to the state legislature:
i.“A bill for punishing disturbers of religious worship and Sabbath
breakers.” This bill declared, “If any person on Sunday shall
himself be found laboring at his own or any other trade or
calling…except that it be in the ordinary household offices of
daily necessity or other work of necessity or charity, he shall
forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence.”
In case you missed it, TJ along with two other individuals, submitted a bill that made it illegal to do certain types of work on Sunday! And, violation of this public law was punishable by a fine!
ii.“A bill for appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving”.
This bill declared, “The power of appointing Days of Public
Fasting and Thanksgiving…may…be exercised by the Governor.
Every minister of the Gospel shall, on each day so to be
appointed, attend and perform Divine service and preach a
sermon or discourse suited to the occasion in his church, on
pain of forfeiting fifty pounds for every failure, not
having a reasonable excuse.” (Barton, pg169,170)
This is one I really enjoy because I’m a preacher. This bill declares two incredulous things:
a.The ‘Governor’ of the state can declare days of Public Fasting and prayer! Please note that the law did not say a pastor, preacher, or minister of the Gospel…it said a Governor! Remember, this is a civil law of the land…not a church law!
However, the second point caused me to laugh out loud!
b.It appears this law applies directly to preachers on those specific days of fasting and prayer determined by the Governor. If this is true, incredibly, the law states that when the Governor declares a day of fasting and prayer, preachers must organize and hold church services, and then preach a message suited to the reason of the Governor’s declaration…or be fined!!! Note, the fine applied to each time the preacher refused to preach!
Oh my!!! I love it!!!
iii.“A Bill annulling marriages prohibited by the Levitical law and
appointing the mode of solemnizing Lawful marriage.” This
bill stated, “Marriages prohibited by the Levitical law shall be
null; and persons marrying contrary to that prohibition and co-
habitating as man and wife, convicted thereof in the General
Court, shall be fined from time to time until they separate.”
This bill actually has written into its body the terms “Levitical law” and “Levitical marriage”. Are you aware of the origin of the term “Levitical”? Of course you do--The book of Leviticus in the the Bible! This bill will send contemporary liberals into a frenzy! Yet, its origin was Governor Thomas Jefferson, who eventually became, President Thomas Jefferson!!
I repeat…as Governor—TJ personal introduced these Bills to the state legislature!!!
5.“In 1780, Governor TJ ordered an official state medal to be created with the motto: “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God!” The origin of this statement was Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex(1644).” Later, TJ also incorporated this same motto for his personal seal! (Barton, pg170)
6. “In 1789 Jefferson was secretary of state to President George Washington. One of his assignments was to construct Washington D.C. In 1795, newspapers reported on his progress, “City of Washington, June 19. Is it with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning at 11:00, by Reverend Mr Ralph.” (Barton, pg171)
Here is the question—who approved this worship service? There can only be on correct answer—the one who was in charge—Thomas Jefferson!
These facts may be new to you…but they are irrefutable facts of history! On the contrary, TJ was no deist, nor atheist, nor did he attempt to establish a secular government and society! Somebody has been fibbing to us!!! I wonder who?
*Facts in this tidbit taken from historian David Barton’s incredible book “The Jefferson Lies”, which possesses over 2000 footnotes!!
"If no other consideration had convinced me of the value of the Christian life, the Christlike work which the Church of all denominations in America has done during the last thirty-five years for the elevation of the black man would have made me a Christian."
-Booker T. Washington
Did TJ use the term ‘Separation of Church and State’ because he desired a secular society, scrubbed of any religion? Did TJ use the ‘Separation of Church and State’ because he was an atheist, and despised Christianity?
Let’s examine the facts:
1.In 1773,** the Boston Tea Party protested against the British oppression. The British responded by setting June 1, 1774 as the date to blockade the Boston port destroying its trade and economy. “…upon hearing of this, TJ and a handful of patriots (Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Francis Lightfoot Lee, and a few others) arranged for a measure to be introduced in the Virginia legislature*** calling for a public day of fasting and prayer, “devoutly to implore the Divine interposition in behalf of an injured and oppressed people.””
Incredibly, that same legislation called for the legislators to “proceed with the Speaker and the Mace to the Church…and that the Reverend Mr. Price be appointed to read prayers, and the Reverend Mr Gwatkin to preach a sermon suitable to the occasion.”
If that was not enough, TJ wrote his local church in Monticello to arrange for a parallel day of prayer and fasting…which he actually attended!!! (Barton, pg168)
In review, TJ introduced a bill to the Virginia legislature, not to the private sector, but the government sector…calling for the people to fast and pray. Then he found preachers to pray and preach. Then he inspired his home church to get involved, which he attended! Sounds like he violated his own separation of church and state…except for one small point--he never intended to promote liberalism’s re-definition, which is: ‘separation of God from the state’.
2.'In 1776, while serving in the Continental Congress, Jefferson was placed on a committee of five to draft the Declaration of Independence. He was the principal author of that document, and it incorporated four explicit, open acknowledgements of God…”: (Barton, pg168)
i.“Laws of nature and nature’s God”
ii.“all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
iii.“Supreme Judge of the world”
iv.“protection of divine Providence”
“This document was actually a dual declaration: a declaration of independence from Great Britain, and a declaration of dependence on God” (Barton, pg168). Considering this is one of the two most important documents in American history--with other being the Constitution—considering these four points, it’s really hard to fit TJ with the charge of atheism!
3.“On July 4, 1776, Jefferson was placed on a committee of three to draft an official seal for the American government. His own recommendation included a Bible account of “the children Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night” (Barton, pg 169).
The three men assigned to this first committee to design the American seal were TJ, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. See the seals of TJ and Franklin below. Let’s be very candid, do these two seals by Jefferson and Franklin look like they originated from the minds of men who reject miracles? Do these seals describe men who believe God created the world, but left-it for humans to figure things out? I mean, both seals describe Israel in Egypt, which depict God intervening in the world through the miraculous…but Deists categorically reject the miraculous! Not only does this contradict the supposed deism of Jefferson and Franklin, but it is a direct contradiction of the liberal mindset that America is not a Christian nation!
Why would Jefferson and Franklin offer a seal with ideas taken from the Bible, if they believed the people to which they were presenting those ideas were atheists or deists? Were they so dumb that they thought their Biblical, i.e.Christian seals would be approved among a group that rejected the Bible?
In conclusion, do the above facts present Jefferson as a man who hates Christianity? Who is an atheist? Do the facts describe a man who wants a secular society? Do the facts describe TJ addressing a secular, non-Christian people? On the contrary, to any objective person, these facts sound very much like TJ was a Christian government official, presenting his Christian colleagues, with biblical material to consider for their approval, because all those involved understood that “righteousness exalts a nation”(Pro14:34)!
No…TJ’s use of the term ‘Separation of Church and State’ with the Danbury Baptists does not allow for its liberal re-definition: ‘Separation of God from the State’!
*Facts in this tidbit taken from historian David Barton’s incredible book “The Jefferson Lies”, which possesses over 2000 footnotes!!
**Over 25 years before TJ became president! This means he held these beliefs for decades!
***Please note this was organized including the government!
Unless you change how you are, you'll always have what you've got!