In my experience, contemporary Democrats are almost exclusively Liberal (and vice versa); and contemporary Republicans are almost exclusively Conservative (and vice versa). Interestingly, Blacks are almost exclusively Democrat although many still claim to be Conservative. On the contrary, Whites are divided between Conservative and Liberal, and Republican and Democrat fairly evenly, although Whites lean more toward the Liberal side than Conservative. Most importantly, Christians are often split between both Liberals and Conservatives. Obviously, this creates great confusion!
Furthermore, the reason more Blacks are Democrats than Republican is because Blacks are taught from their youth that Democrats favor Blacks, and Republicans are racist. I find this an extremely interestingly phenomenon, which will be addressed later. This means race does in fact, have an effect upon party affiliation.
If you review the following Pew research poll:
…you will find that peoples’ ‘generation’ is not a consistent factor to determine whether a person is Democrat or Republican. Further evidence for this inconsistency is that political party platforms change over time, and some people switch parties while others choose to remain with their party. This means not even party platforms are powerful enough to consistently predict how people determine their party affiliation.
Furthermore, another Pew research poll reveals that race, generation,
and education do not consistently predict party affiliation over time. In other words, some polls predict, while others contradict how party affiliation is determined. Yet, because inconsistencies do in fact exist, the interpretation of these inconsistencies becomes relevant.
Following are at least four reasons for the inconsistencies:
1.Definitions. First, the definitions of the words Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican often change, which completely confuses people, who respond by retaining their present party.
2.Platform positions. Second, most people do not affiliate with a political party because of their Party’s platform positions. Why? Because like definitions, party positions also change. Once again, because people have voted according to a particular party--all their life—they simply continue that historical pattern. In addition, the idea of voting according to a historical pattern is also true of people who don’t vote at all.
3.Apathy/lethargy. People believe their votes don’t make a difference because--in their opinion--nothing changes whether a Democrat or Republican takes office. Apathy can also overwhelm people due to a belief that because the Constitution does not change, and all leaders must abide by the Constitution, there is no need to vote.
4.Bible. A rejection of the Bible causes:
i.ignorance of the Word of God
ii.ignorance of the purposes of America
ii.ignorance of the providential history of America, and other nations
iii.ignorance of God’s wrath.
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
-President George Washington
In short review, in part 1, I concluded: Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals all derive their philosophies from a deity! Why? See part 2.
In part 2, I concluded Colossians 2:8 declares Christ/the Word of God stands on one side; and on the other are the philosophies of mankind. Therefore, all philosophy originates in theology, or from a god—either the God of the Bible, or a false god.
In part 3, I offered the definition of liberalism from 1828 Webster’s dictionary: “free to access, sexual license. In comparison, the conservative definition is conserving the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
In part 4, I concluded the Biblical God is political (Is9:6). Therefore, political philosophies can be Biblical or unbiblical! All man’s philosophies originate either from God, or from man.
Therefore, because parties are comprised of ‘imperfect’ people*, it is possible for an authentic believer to become part of a party/group that holds to unbiblical/ungodly positions, yet that individual can still be saved. How? Because his/her mind is not renewed on the Word of God(Rom12:1-2)!!!
Likewise, it is possible for a person to be part of a party/group that holds Biblical views, and yet not be a Christian, because that one may come understand certain principles God placed in the creation, and allow those principles to inform his/her views. For example, the concept of ‘freedom’ is not only taught in the Bible(Gal5:1,13), but it also exists in the Creation**, therefore an unbeliever can choose a party/group that supports ‘freedom’, and yet not be a Christian.
Of course, the problem arises when an authentic Christian adopts unbiblical philosophies (1Tim4:1,Col2:8); in the long-run--he/she will fail(Josh1:8)! Why? I repeat, only God’s word ultimately works---in both the short and long run!!(Ps119:160) Because this is true, it is imperative that every Christian--after their salvation--begin to renew his/her mind on the Word of God(Rom12:1-2)! Why? In order understand how God works both individually and nationally—and then commit to align themself with His good and perfect will!
It is critical at this point to understand that if an authentic Christian becomes deceived, and chooses to run after political parties, groups, churches, etc., that reject the Word of God(1Tim4:1), they will ultimately receive the same judgment--in this life---as those unbelievers who reject the Word of God! Why? The wages of sin is death(Rom6:23)! For example, although no human can actually judge the heart of another, we can however, judge their fruit(Mat7:16). An application of this great truth is during the 30’s and early 40’s in Germany, where many people claimed to be Christians--yet joined the Nazis! When the Russians attacked Germany from the east and Americans from the west, do you think the German Christians were spared? Of course not! Yet, an even better question is—do you think God protected authentic Christians who ran after Hitler? My answer is an obvious NO! Of course, one may argue that those Germans who claimed Christ, and were Nazis—were pseudo-Christians--and you might be right! Yet, to this day, I know Christians who hold to unbiblical views, yet vehemently claim Christian conversion! Therefore, if that is true, it means it is possible for an authentic Christian to be deceived! But, if a Christian can be deceived holding to unbiblical positions--I can guarantee one thing--his/her Christianity can no more keep that Christian from God’s judgment(on this earth)---than God keeps a smoking-Christian from lung cancer!
Let’s cut to the chase, in part 1 I wrote, “in general, liberal Christians claim the Democrat party, while conservative Christians claim the Republican party”. This is an obvious undeniable fact. What is also undeniable is that liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans are incompatible, they have totally different values, yet Christians occupy both sides. Who then is right? As I pointed out in part 3, the only standard/way to judge something or someone as either right or wrong, or good or evil—is the absolute standard:
1.the Word of God, the Bible.
2.The creation, which was created by the Word of God, and
possesses God’s innate values within each created thing.
Theologically, these two are known as Special revelation (1) and General revelation (2).
In other words, without God’s word as THE absolute standard, evil cannot exist—only good exists! I repeat, if God does not exist then everything is good---and evil cannot exist! Why? Without God, man becomes the sole judge of good and evil, or right and wrong. Therefore, because mankind is inherently equal, and if mankind determines his own good and evil—then one man’s evil is another man’s good—which means no man’s behavior can be judged as evil!!!!
Yet, because mankind does in fact judge some things good, and other things evil; that fact alone demands an absolute standard! Yet, if an absolute standard exists, it cannot be a creation of mankind—because mankind cannot have an absolute standard! Why? Because I repeat, every man/woman has their own version of good! Therefore, Who is that only One Whom can determine an absolute good and evil? God!! Who is this God? His Name is Jesus! The God of the Bible—Who is the only God (Jn17:3).
If this is not true, there can be no disagreement between Liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans! Yet, unless one is living on the Moon, we know that not only does a disagreement exist between these two groups, it is an irredeemable disagreement!
*People who have a sin nature, i.e.a propensity to sin.
**Not only people, but all things animate exhibit an inherent law of freedom written on their hearts
“Initial response illustrates a great deal about someone's personal philosophy.” -Jim Rohn
Following are just a few examples of God’s hand of blessing upon America:
1.America is the first nation in the history of the world to facilitate such incredible prosperity for so many of its people*!!
2.An unprecedented number of minorities, including an unprecedented number of Blacks, have achieved--in many instances---wild prosperity; more so than in any other present nation, and more than any other nation in the history of the world--including every Black African
nations—past and present!
3.America is the only nation in the history of the world to willfully elect a descendent of the group it once enslaved as its leader, i.e.president!
4.America is not only the first, but the only nation in the history of the world to willfully re-elect a descendent of the group it once enslaved. There is no other White, Hispanic, Asian, Arab, or African nation that can make this boast!
5.No other White majority nation in the history of the world has ever elected a black leader.
6.America is the only nation in the history of the world to elect a former member of the enslaved group as its president in less than 150 years after abolishing slavery!
7.America is the first nation in the history of the world to abolish slavery not by a slave uprising, but by the conscience of the slave-holder!!!
8.By 1980, more black Africans have immigrated to America seeking freedom and opportunity than were ever brought here as slaves.
9.The conscience of America regarding slavery was changed by the Judeao/Christian ethic, which created Western culture, which for the first time in the history of the world led to, i.e. influenced many other nations to follow its lead, and abolish slavery!!!
-America is the leading exporter of the Judaeo/Christian ethic
to the world, and therefore by default the abolishment of
10.America is the only nation in the history of the world founded upon an idea, and not ethnicity, race, or nationality; and that idea is liberty. America’s freedom has been exported to the nations of the world; and many of those nations have become even more free than America.
11.America is presently the least racist, multi-cultural nation in the history of the world.
Why is America exceptional?** Not because America is better than any other nation, but because America has honored God!
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. -Ps33:12
On the contrary, the day will soon come when God will restore Israel*** to its rightful position as world leader. When that day soon arrives, God will pour out a blessing upon the world like never before!
"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:
but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles,
for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them (Jews/Israel) be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much
more their fulness? -Rom11:11-12
*See ‘Everyday Millionaires’, by Chris Hogan, the most comprehensive study of millionaires ever completed. He interviewed over 10,000 millionaires.
**This is a short list of the things that make America exceptional
Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out. -Jim Rohn
The Interpretations of George Floyd’s Murder
Every human being interprets life! And, every human uses a value system to make those interpretations. If you choose God’s values to interpret life, i.e.the Judaeo-Christian ethic—you find truth. If you use man’s value system to interpret life, you find lies, destruction, and death! It’s that simple!
God cannot lie(Num23:19), so He expects and demands we tell the truth. When interpreting George Floyd’s murder, it is critical to use truth…not feelings. Feelings are rarely truth, and can be influenced by personal experience, media, friends, majority voices, and many other factors. However, because truth originates in God(Jn14:6; Jn17:17; Ps119:142)…nothing can influence it!
Following are several interpretations of George Floyd’s murder:
1.Derek Chauvin put his knee on George Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and he died. I have read differing reports of what killed him. Either he died of asphyxia or a heart attack, with heart disease and drug use as contributing factors. However, all who saw his death agree—black, white, brown, red, and yellow--that Officer Chauvin is responsible for George Floyd’s death, which means Derek Chauvin will be charged with murder.
However, moving past this initial fact, I have heard/seen the following interpretations of George Floyd’s murder:
2.Police target black people
3.Police are racist
4.America is a racist nation
5.White people are racist
6.America has systemic racism
7.Blacks get no justice in America
8.Black lives don’t matter
There are presently no conflicting facts with point 1 above, but there are many conflicting facts with every interpretation thereafter. Let’s get to it!
1.The Washington Post, a liberal newspaper cites the facts of police fatal shootings: 2015: white–497; black-258; Hispanic-172. 2016: white-468; black-234; Hispanic-160. 2017: white-459; black-224; Hispanic-179. 2018: white-454; black-229; Hispanic-165. 2019: white-405; black-249; Hispanic-163. 2020: white-185; black-97; Hispanic-61. Totals for 5 years: whites-2468; blacks-1291; Hispanic-900. Fact1- police kill more whites than blacks by almost double. Fact2-Police often kill more whites than blacks and Hispanics combined.
How do YOU interpret these facts?
2.Roland Fryer, a black Harvard trained researcher did a 2016 study of police shootings:
“It is the most surprising result of my career!”
“Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were
about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black.”
"Mr Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot of
there was no difference between blacks and whites"
“In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were
more likely to fire their weapons without having first been
attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white
civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have
been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial
bias in police use of lethal force.” Here Here
How do YOU interpret these facts?
3.The most recent study on Police shootings in August of 2019 is from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS). Their study concluded: “We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” And, “We report three main findings: 1) As the proportion of Black or Hispanic officers in a FOIS increases, a person shot is more likely to be Black or Hispanic than White, a disparity explained by county demographics; 2) race-specific county-level violent crime strongly predicts the race of the civilian shot; and 3) although we find no overall evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities in fatal shootings, when focusing on different subtypes of shootings (e.g., unarmed shootings or “suicide by cop”), data are too uncertain to draw firm conclusions.”
How do YOU interpret these facts?
4.In 2012 here are the leading causes of death for Blacks:
Police shootings -123 (CDC, 2012)
Homocides-8,206 (22 per day) (6,000 through guns)
Abortion 363,705 (996/day)
Do Black Lives matter, other than when taken by white police? I’m sure these figures were different in 2019, but it’s certainly not going to be by much. How do YOU interpret these facts?
5.In 2016, African-American Keith Lamont Scott was killed by police in Charlotte, North Carolina, and subsequently riots ransacked the city. Keith Lamont Scott became a household name across America, and remains so, to this day. I repeat, the media broadcast his tragic death as another instance of police brutality and racism—against blacks! However, there are two further interesting facts. First, it was a black officer who shot him!! And two, five white men were killed by police that very same day(9/20/16), yet not one of them made national news!!! How do YOU interpret these facts?
6.If it is true that police target blacks; or that police are racist toward black people, how do you account for the LA police force being 64.6 percent minority, i.e.non-white…since 2013? In other words, all across America, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, and minorities are part of policing. Minority involvement in policing has been increasing for decades. In the statement “police target blacks”, does this consider the blacks shot by black police? If so, why is the statement “police target blacks” used to prove police are racist?
As “police target blacks”, does it mean the black policemen(or other minorities) who shoot black people are racist against blacks? If not, why not, considering police shooting blacks is racist? Or, does it mean “only white police target blacks”? If white police target blacks, why do police shoot more whites? If police “target” blacks, why do they shoot Hispanics? The word “target” means focus, intent, purpose. Is it possible for a white policeman to literally target blacks, but shoot whites or Hispanics instead?
In the statistics in point 1, if you add the numbers of white and Hispanics police shootings together, it is often double, and almost triple the number of blacks who are shot. If white policeman “target”, “focus”, “intend” to shoot blacks, and then shoot that number of whites and Hispanics instead, then we absolutely need police reform!!!! How do YOU interpret these facts?
7.Let’s examine the assertions: “America is a racist nation” or “American has systemic racism”. In 1970, there were 1500 blacks in politics, today there are over 10,000!!! America is the only nation, not only in the world, but in the history of the world, to ever elect a man president from a group it formerly enslaved…Barack Obama. And…he was elected twice. If all the blacks and Hispanics of America combined voted for Obama, he would not have been elected president. Therefore, because whites are by far the majority group in America, it was fundamentally white people who elected Obama…both times!
In addition, America is the only nation in the history of the world to elect a member of group it formerly enslaved within 150 years of abolishing slavery!
If America was a racist nation, how foolish would ‘brown’ Mexicans be to literally bum-rush the border to get into America?!?! Why would “people of color” from Cuba literally risk their lives, and many have literally died, to cross shark-infested waters to get into racist America? How about the hundreds of thousands of black Africans; not including the Trinidadians, Bahamians, Haitians, etc.—all black; all ‘people of color’, whom are presently either citizens of “racist” America; or trying get into ‘racist’ America! How do YOU interpret these facts?
8.Researcher Dr Inan Dogan, along with the Washington Post, compiled a list of the ‘25 Most Racist Nations In The World’. Guess what nation did not make the list? Ahhhh…America! They also did another list of the 13 Least racist nations of the world. Guess who was number 1? Ahhhh…America!!! Here Here
How do YOU interpret these facts?
9.American blacks are the most prosperous blacks…in the world!!! Ahhhhhh….let me rephrase that…in the history of the world!! Blacks in America crossed the Gross Domestic product (GDP) mark of 1 trillion dollars in 2013. That figure makes American blacks, whom are not a nation, float between the 16th to the 18th most productive ‘nation’ on the planet!! What’s even more incredible, is that this figure represents a GDP that exceeds the GDP of the top four Black African Nations---combined! Nigeria 408; South Africa-370; Angola-119; Kenya-88!!!!
Black Economist Walter Williams says the rise of economic gain among American Blacks--from slavery to this present day--is the greatest among any ethnic group in the history of the world!
Is it possible for American blacks to produce these kinds of results in a “racist” nation?!?! While being oppression?!?! While being slaughtered by the police?!?! If blacks can produce over a trillion in GDP, making them the 16-18th largest nation in the world--under such oppressive circumstances, than Hitler’s Aryans are not the SUPERRACE…American Blacks are!!!! How do YOU interpret these facts? Here
10.Are you aware what a “racist nation” looks like? Nazi Germany is one example. Under Hitler’s regime did Jews create businesses? Did they prosper in media or academia? Did Jews prosper in entertainment? Did they become political leaders in Nazi Germany? Did they prosper in sports? In the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, America originally had 2 Jews on its 4x100 relay team, and at Hitler’s demand, America removed those 2 Jews! By the way, that relay team won Jesse Owens’ his 4th gold medal!
Or, how about bringing this illustration a bit closer to home--the 1855 American south is another example of a racist nation. Did Blacks prosper under the laws of the 1855 American south? In 1860, the south actually named their nation “Slave Holding Confederate States of America.” The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens said, “the Confederate states of America is founded upon… its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man. Slavery, the subordination to the superior White race, is a natural and moral condition of the Negro.”
Here are the million dollar questions about “racist America”: 1.Do you see the laws of Germany, or of 1855 America, part of the contemporary American penal code? Can you honestly say, Blacks are not prospering in America? Not in the media? Nor academia? Politics? Entertainment? Sports? etc? How do YOU interpret these facts?
11.Last but not least. The number ‘1’ reason, i.e.the most important reason, America is not a racist nation is God’s call on the nation. God raised up America to be a light to the world. To call America a racist nation is to attack God’s very calling. When Israel was going through the 400 years recorded in the book of Judges, as they sinned, God sent them into captivity as judgment; and when they repented, God delivered them from their captivity. As far as I am aware, God did not ‘call them by their sin!! In other words, God never identified Israel with its sin! On the contrary, He called them to turn away from their sin! When the statement is declared: “America is a racist nation”, it means America is identified with the sin of racism! This is why when liberals make this statement, they support it using the history of slavery. What they mean is, “America is presently racist, because it has always been racist, and therefore will always be racist”—and then cite America’s racial history as their evidence! I repeat—God never did this with Israel! On the contrary, God does not believe America is a racist nation! He created it to be part of His providential plan to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world!!! How do you interpret this fact?
While it is a present fact that Officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd…none of the remaining previous interpretations are true!!
For exact contemporary Democrat and Republican positions, please visit their webpages: democrats.org and GOP.com. However, to do so, will get you the ‘Candy Cane’ version, which is the ‘mask’ offered to the public. The authentic ‘face’ of these two parties can be found in a combination of at least four places. Below is the list from least to most important:
4.The people who support the respective parties
3.The authentic history of the parties
2.The adoption of liberalism and/or conservativism
1.The implementation of the Judaeo/Christian ethic
First, because everyone has a bias, you must understand mine. I am a Christian, a pastor, an author, and a part-time historian. Therefore, because my desire is to glorify God(Col3:23), my ultimate objective is rooted in the Providence of God. Providence means God working in the past and present to bring about His divine purposes. This means, at a ‘practical’ level, my views will emerge from asking some very simple questions: What does God think? What does God think about what I think? What does God think about a political party position or action? What is God attempting to accomplish in the near, and distant future through a particular person or political party’s position or action?
Because political parties are comprised of men who have sin natures, it is impossible for any one party, or group of people, to ever have a monopoly on God’s will and purposes. This means there has been both good and evil coming from all American political parties…from the beginning of this nation! A cursory study of 1Samuel through 2 Chronicles verifies this very point. To be true to the title of these tidbits, and my readers, I must begin somewhere; whether the following is the beginning, middle, or end, only you can decide.
The Bible declares:
-the “government shall be upon His shoulders” (Is9:6)
-“the increase of His government, there shall be no end” (Is9:7)
-“of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Lu1:33)
-“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and
he shall reign forever and ever.” (Rev11:15)
-“He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1Tim6:15)
These verses teach, God is obviously…what we would call…political! In other words, “every knee…”--in every arena of life, including politics—“shall bow” to Jesus (Phil2:10)…from kings to slaves! No exceptions! In other words, my three previous sentences are not only theological statements, but political! The God who reigns over the universe, by default, reigns over politics!!
Therefore, when the Bible declares:
-“all the gods of the nations are idols” (Ps96:5)
-“Blessed is the nation who God is the Lord” (Ps33:12)
…means those in the political arena are subject to the Sovereign God! Now, here is the grand ole question: If it is true that God reigns over politics, and the men and women who are involved--He must have a will for politics or nations. A will that man must use to determine right and wrong; and good and evil! I repeat, some things must be God’s will, while other things are not His will! How do we know God’s will for politics? There are two ways to determine God’s will:
1.God’s word(scripture/Bible). God’s will is His word, and God’s word
is His will! (Jn17:17;Ps119:142)
2.The Creation. God wrote His law/ways into the creation (Rom1:20)
1.There are two ways to determine God’s will from scripture:
a.Biblical. This could also be called Positive
b.UnBiblical. This could also be called Negative
“Biblical” means you find a text like John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” If one interprets this verse to mean: ‘God loves the world’, or ‘God loves humanity’; we call these statements ‘Biblical’. It’s also called Positive because it offers something God supports; He’s in favor of; He desires; His will!
“Unbiblical” means God does not support it. It is most often identified as sin. For example, God says it’s wrong to lie (Ex20:16; 1Tim1:10). Therefore, it’s negative because it instructs us what God determines wrong, or what not to do.
2.There are two ways to determine God’s will from the Creation:
a.Examine how the creation works, and you will discover
b.Determine the purpose of the created thing, and you
will discover God’s will.
In the following weeks, I will examine a few of the beliefs, actions, and history of the parties, and those who support those parties, and contrast them to the Bible!
Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out. -Jim Rohn
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