religion
All posts tagged religion
‘While it has so far escaped public attention, the evil agenda behind “transhumanism”—a key part of the Great Reset—literally threatens liberty and even the continued existence of humanity itself, warns The New American magazine’s Alex Newman in this episode of Behind The Deep State. In part one of this series on transhumanism, Alex explains that this issue may be more important than any other on the horizon, with everything else potentially becoming moot. Among other technologies involved, Alex highlights Artificial Intelligence (AI), nanobots, 5G, synthetic biology, the Internet of Things (IOT), the Internet of Bodies (IOB), and more.
This episode in particular focuses on how the powerful players in Big Government, Big Tech, and Big Businesses is trying to paint Americans into a corner through ubiquitous surveillance, the newly announced vaccine passports, microchips, digital ID, cashless systems, and so much more. The Fourth Industrial Revolution, announced by Klaus Schwab, is a key component of this crazy agenda. Much more to come in this series.’https://rumble.com/vpnb9x-transhumanism-the-end-of-liberty-and-humanity-part-one.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+New+American&ep=1
What kind of man do people look for in a pastor/leader? Then consider, what makes people attend churches that have men with not so good a reputation?
Does the Bible have anything to say concerning the pastor of the church? Yes, it does.
1Timothy 3:1-7 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Then in 2 Timothy 3 God describes another type of man.
2Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
‘The “cultic” activities of Mark Driscoll and The Trinity Church have escalated to a whole new level. On this edition of The Roys Report, two former members of Driscoll’s security detail – Chad Freese and Ben Eneas – share their firsthand knowledge of this cult of personality.’ https://julieroys.com/podcast/inside-the-driscoll-cult?mc_cid=063dadc6c4&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
‘The existence of humans suggests that, at some point, there must have been a first human. Neither evolutionists nor creationists deny this. However, creationists believe that Adam (Genesis 1–2) was the first human. But whether the first human was Adam or some unnamed, recently-evolved person, where did that person learn to speak?
Evidence suggests that humans do not learn to speak unless they are taught by someone who already knows how to speak. Additionally, the archaeological record indicates that fully-developed languages have been in existence as long as humans have been (Elgin 1973, 44). For these reasons, Curtis, in a 1990 article, argues that a personal creator was responsible for the existence of the first human.
Linguistic Evidence
Linguistic research suggests that languages have not evolved from a prehistoric development period (Eglin 1973, 44). Rather, languages have always existed with the same communication potential as they currently possess. In fact, it is possible that they even held greater communication potential in the past.
Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological finds from the past 100 years of excavations have demonstrated that written language appears well developed in the earliest records of civilization. For example, the Ebla tablets date to about 2000 BC. These tablets contain writing in a fully-developed, phonetic language.
How Do People Learn How to Speak?
Some Darwinian anthropologists have suggested that if, in the process of evolution, there was a transition from animal to man, this transition would have included the acquisition of language. However, one of these anthropologists, Humbolt, realized that man cannot speak without already being human. For him, this created an unsolvable problem regarding the origin of speech (Lyell 1873).
Another problem with determining the origin of speech from an evolutionary perspective is that in so-called primitive cultures, the languages tend to be more complex than in more advanced cultures. Furthermore, animals with the physical capability to use logical speech do not do so. Studies have shown that animals that respond to commands do so based on vocal tones rather than the spoken words. Thus, all attempts to solve the evolutionary origin of language have failed.
Every child that learns how to speak learns from someone who already knows how to speak. There do not seem to be any exceptions to this rule. Feral children who grow up without contact with spoken language did not learn to speak until they came into contact with speaking individuals. Once they had heard speech, they were able to learn how to speak (Tomb 1925).
What Does this All Mean?
Since multiple languages appear to have existed in fully developed forms in the earliest known civilizations, it appears that the languages do not have one common root. Rather, each language appeared independently of the others.
This evidence aligns well with the biblical account. From the creation of Adam until the Tower of Babel, there was only one language on earth (Genesis 11:1). Curtis suggests that God taught the first man, Adam, to speak. It is clear that Adam spoke a well-developed language because he was able to name the animals (Genesis 2:19). From that point on, each generation learned to speak from the previous one.
Later, when God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7), He miraculously created a number of additional unrelated, fully-formed languages. The pattern of language learning continued. Each person learned to speak from the previous generation.
Conclusion
The scientific evidence obtained through linguistic and archaeological studies suggest that the first human who learned how to speak must have learned from someone who already possessed the capability of speech. This first person must have learned from someone of a higher order than humans. This correlates well with the biblical account of God’s creation of Adam. Adam must have received the ability and knowledge to speak from God himself. The study of language demonstrates that there must be a creator God. No human can speak a language unless that person has been taught. Furthermore, languages have not arisen from some lesser forms of communication. They appeared early in history, fully developed. The languages present today do not share a common root, suggesting that they appeared as separate, well-developed languages. This accords well with the account of the Tower of Babel.
References
Curtis, William M. 1990. “Human Language Demands a Creator.” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 2:1, 69–72.
Elgin, Suzette H. 1973. What is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Lyell, C. 1873. Antiquity of Man, 4th Ed., 518.
Tomb, J. W. 1925. “On the Intuitive Capacity of Children to Understand Spoken Language.” British Journal of Psychiatry 1, 553–555.’https://newcreation.blog/how-did-humans-learn-to-speak/?mc_cid=c226022714&mc_eid=2abe4a38b0
‘One way to get a Nobel prize in something, you’ve got to break some new ground or discover something no one has ever seen. In the world, the making of a printing press or light bulb changes everything. People still try to invent a better mousetrap. It happens. The phone replaced the telegraph and now our mobile devices, the phone.
Everyone can learn something new from scripture. You might even change or tweak a doctrine you’ve always believed. On the whole, you don’t want to teach from the Bible what no one has ever heard before. The goal is the original intent and understanding of the Author.
From the left comes progressivism. The U. S. Constitution, just over two hundred years old, means something different than when it was written. Loosely constructed, it has a flexible interpretation into which new meanings arise. Hegelian dialectics say a new thesis comes from synthesis of antithesis and a former thesis. Everything can be improved.
Early after the inspiration and then propagation of the Bible, men found new things no one ever saw in scripture. Many of these “finds” started a new movement. People have their fathers, the father of this or that teaching, contradictory to the other, causing division and new factions and denominations. Some of these changes become quite significant, a majority supplanting the constituents of the original teaching.
At the time of the Reformation, it was as if the world first found sole fide and sole scriptura. Men often call justification the Reformation doctrine of justification. This opened a large, proverbial can of worms. Many could read their own Bible in their own language. Others now dug into their own copy of the original languages of scripture. Skepticism grew. “If we didn’t know this before, what else did they not tell us.” It became a time ripe for religious shysters and this practice hasn’t stopped since then.
Socinus
The Italian, Laelius Socinus, was born in 1525 into a distinguished family of lawyers. Early his attention turned from law to scripture research. He doubted the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Socinus moved in 1548 to Zurich to study Greek and Hebrew. He still questioned established doctrine and challenged the Reformers. Laelius wrote his own confession of faith, which introduced different, conflicting beliefs. They took hold of his nephew, Faustus Socinus, born in 1539.
Faustus rejected orthodox Roman Catholic doctrines. The Inquisition denounced him in 1559, so he fled to Zurich in 1562. There he acquired his uncle’s writings. His doubt of Catholicism turned anti-Trinitarian. The Reformation did not go far enough for Socinus. His first published work in 1562 on the prologue of John rejected the essential deity of Jesus Christ.
Socinus’s journeys ended in Poland, where he became leader of the Minor Reformed Church, the Polish Brethren. His writings in the form of the Racovian Catechism survived through the press of the Racovian Academy of Rakow, Poland. His beliefs took the name, Socinianism, now also a catch-all for any type of dissenting doctrine.
Socinianism held that Jesus did not exist until his physical conception. God adopted Him as Son at His conception and became Son of God when the Holy Spirit conceived Him in Mary, a Gnostic view called “adoptionism.” It rejected the doctrine of original sin.
Socianism denied the omniscience of God. It introduced the first well developed concept of “open theism,” which said that man couldn’t have free will under a traditional (and scriptural) understanding of omniscience.
Socinianism also taught the moral example theory of atonement, teaching that Jesus sacrificed himself to motivate people to repent and believe. His death gave men the ability to be saved by their own works, who weren’t sinners by nature anyway.
Unitarians
The work of Socinus lived on in the belief of early English Unitarians, Henry Hedworth and John Biddle. Socinian belief was helped along also by its position of conscientious objection, a practice of refusing to perform military service. This principle was very popular with many and made Socinianism much more attractive to potential adherents. The First Unitarian Church, which followed Socianism as passed down through its leaders in England, was started in 1774 on Essex Street in London, where British Unitarian headquarters are still today.
As the Puritans of colonial America apostatized through various means, Unitarianism, a modern iteration of Socinianism took hold in the Congregational Church in America. After 1820, Congregationalists took Unitarianism as their established doctrine. The doctrine of Christ diminished to Jesus a good man and perhaps a prophet of God and in a sense the Son of God, but not God Himself.
Spirit of Skepticism
I write as an example of the diversity in the history of Christian doctrine and why it takes place. When you read the beliefs of Socinians, you easily see them in modern liberal Christianity. They influence on religious cults that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
A limited amount of skepticism wards away the acceptance of false doctrine. Better is a Berean attitude (Acts 17:11), searching the scripture to see if these things are so, and what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, proving all things, holding fast to that which is good.
As I grew up among fundamentalists and independent Baptists, I witnessed regular desire to find something new in the Bible. Many sermons espoused interpretations I had never heard and didn’t see in the text. A preacher often said, “God gave it to me.” You should know God used the man because no one had seen such insights into scripture.
The same spirit of doctrinal novelty continues today in many evangelical churches. The same practice led Joseph Smith in his founding of Mormonism. Many cults arose in 19th century America under the same spirit of skepticism of established historical doctrines.
The Temptation of Novel Teaching
The temptation of novel teaching preys on anyone. Faustus Socinus accepted many orthodox doctrines of his day. He rejected Christ as fully God and fully human because it was contrary to sound reason (ratio sana). This steered Socinians toward Enlightenment thinking, where human reason took the highest role as arbiter of truth.
Warren Wiersbe wrote that H.A. Ironside, longtime pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church, said, “If it’s new, it’s not true, and if it’s true, it’s not new.” Elsewhere I read that Spurgeon first said that. I don’t know. Clever new interpretations, teachings, and takes on and from scripture corrupt and overturn scriptural, saving doctrines in the hearts of men. They condemn them through all eternity.’https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/11/22/the-regular-history-of-clever-new-interpretations-teachings-or-takes-on-and-from-scripture-socinianism/
‘A pig farmer in the UK heard an academic talk about how the breeding of farm animals shows evolution. At the end of the lecture the pig farmer said, “Professor, I don’t understand what you are talking about. When I breed pigs, I get pigs—if it were not so, I would be out of business!”
Evolutionists understand that the addition of new, increasingly complex information is required if a bacterium is to evolve into a man. For a reptile to change into a bird would require new genes to transform scales into feathers. The odds of random natural processes (like mutations) creating a new gene coding to make feathers (instead of reptilian scales) is essentially zero. Mutations always degrade the information found on the DNA molecule. Mutations never result in increasingly complex information. As ardent evolutionist Carl Sagan admitted: “… mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.” Rare indeed – and in most cases, NEVER!
There are many breeds of dogs, chickens, cats, and pigs, but they are all dogs, chickens, cats and pigs. The reshuffling of different genes produces the great variety within a kind, but the variety is limited to the genes that are present. If there are no genes for feathers, then feathers will not be present. Variation within a kind is not evolution! Galapagos finches are still finches, peppered moths are still peppered moths; they just show variety within a kind, not evolution. Things reproduce after their kind just as the Bible states. As the pig farmer said to the evolutionist, “I would be out of business if pigs did not produce pigs!”’http://www.searchforthetruth.net/
Atheistic Communism has not been defeated and our Western governments are allowing it to do its work via The Great Reset, Climate Change and the China Virus Plandemic.
‘The WSWS is the online publication of the world Trotskyist movement, the International Committee of the Fourth International, and its affiliated sections in the Socialist Equality Parties around the world. It launched publication in February 1998, and has been publishing continuously for the past 23 years.
The WSWS aims to meet the need, felt widely today, for an intelligent appraisal of the problems of contemporary society. It addresses itself to the masses of people who are dissatisfied with the present state of social life, as well as its cynical and reactionary treatment by the establishment media.
Our website provides a source of political perspective to those troubled by the monstrous level of social inequality, which has produced an ever-widening chasm between the wealthy few and the mass of the world’s people. As great events, from financial crises to eruptions of militarism and war, break up the present state of class relations, the WSWS will provide a political orientation for the growing ranks of working people thrown into struggle.
We anticipate enormous battles in every country against unemployment, low wages, austerity policies and violations of democratic rights. The World Socialist Web Site insists, however, that the success of these struggles is inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook.’https://www.wsws.org/en/special/pages/icfi/wsws.html
Keep up to date with this anti-God group and watch how they are manipulating our lives via our supposedly elected politicians.
Proverbs 31:8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. 9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.
How did it get to this point in Australia that there ARE now two classes of citizens; the clean (vaxxed) and the unclean (unvaxxed)? It didn’t take much for the state governments to mandate “no jab, no job” and the people succumbed without much of a whimper.
Now, almost, two years after the so-called pandemic was announced some churches are still not physically meeting together as outlined in Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching and for some if they are now physically meeting together they are a segregated lot. The following concerns the plight we find ourselves in due to the totalitarian response to a PLANDEMIC!
‘As a Brazilian by birth, someone who was born on the year a dictatorship in the name of safety ended in my country, I have always had a dear appreciation for the warnings penned by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Churches, I have a special appeal to you. As a minister of Christ myself who has lost his job because of not agreeing to support measures that promote segregation introduced in the church setting, I beg of you, please, stand by the side of hundreds of thousands who are being marginalized right now. Stand by the side of those who are going to become second-class citizens. If watching what is taking place in other states hasn’t been enough to stir you up yet, now the threat is real and evil is in the house.
Stand and fight for your flocks and for the people of your communities. Let them know they are not alone. Let them know we will sit with them in the gutter any day of the week. Let those who are been ostracized and despised know that they are NOT going to live a “very very lonely life”. Speak against this false gospel of “Life will be miserable without being vaccinated”. There are many who need you right now to speak for them. “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:8-9).’https://caldronpool.com/brace-yourself-australia-it-is-game-on-against-segregation/
Whatever happened to “My Body, My Choice”? In Australia and the West in general ‘Who are the ones demanding mandatory vaccinations and vax passports? Who are the ones fully supporting draconian lockdowns and coercive health mandates? Who are the champions of Big Government controlling every aspect of our lives? Yep – the new left despots.
And they are becoming more shrill and hateful in their denunciations of those who still believe in freedom, personal choice, the right to think for themselves, and limited government. I have shared before about how I am getting so many of these folks telling me – all in the name of love and respect for human life – that they hope I die of Covid. That I should be locked up. That I am the cause of all their problems. Feel the lurve baby!
They are labelling those of us who dare to think for ourselves, ask questions, and who have legitimate and rational concerns about things like mandatory vaccines as murderers, enemies of humanity, and selfish. And those who have the ability to do so are quite willing to use the full power of the state to deal with us recalcitrants.
Plenty of these coercive utopians have made this quite clear. One of the most recent was Labor heavyweight and former NSW Premier Bob Carr. He actually said that those who are not vaxxed should be stripped of Medicare and not allowed basic medical care that their taxes have paid for. One news report puts it this way:
Former New South Wales premier Bob Carr has called on the government to follow Singapore’s decision to discontinue free COVID-19 treatment for unvaccinated patients. On Monday the Singaporean government announced from December 8, residents who were not double jabbed, would have to pay for their medical bills if they contracted the highly infectious virus while the fully vaccinated would be reimbursed. Mr Carr said it was time Australians and residents who chose to not be protected to be forced to “pay for your wilful stupidity”….
The next day Mr Carr doubled down on his comments slamming the “pig-headed view” to refuse vaccination, calling it a “violation of the rights” of those who were vaccinated.
So anyone with legitimate concerns about the new vaxxes are simply stupid and pig-headed. Thanks Bob. Here we go again: second-class citizens; non-persons; dangerous filth; people unworthy of life; health apartheid; segregation and discrimination based on health care choices. Where have we seen all this before?
Um, guess what Bob, those who are not vaxxed are still human beings, they still pay their taxes, and they still deserve dignity and respect – not hatred, abuse, and demonisation. There are many people who have very good reasons for being hesitant. But the left no longer believes in freedom or the right to choose.
And other lefties were supporting this ugly push. Graham Richardson on Sky News last night was happily endorsing Carr’s views, carrying on about how ‘selfish’ folks are and how they are putting his life in danger! Um, I thought the vax was the panacea? Get the vax, and numerous booster jabs, and you are safe. You are protected.
If they believe so fully in the efficacy of the jabs, then why are they so terrified about, and hateful of, those who are unvaxxed? Does not this reaction tell us that even they do not really believe the vax is all that it is made out to be? Either it works or it does not. If it does, then ease up about the unvaxxed. If it does not, then stop demanding that everyone get it, no questions asked.
There have been plenty of scientific studies on all this by the way, and numerous experts are calling into question the efficacy of these vaccines. Here is just one of the most recent cases of this:
A prominent drug safety expert has questioned the efficacy of the mRNA injections against COVID-19 and suggested they do not qualify as vaccines. Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and associate editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), discussed the lack of scientific evidence for COVID vaccine efficacy at a panel about vaccine mandates and injuries. The round-table discussion was hosted by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson in Washington, D.C. on November 2. It included medical experts and people who described their COVID jab injuries.
Doshi gave a 5-minute-long presentation in which he argued that recent data shows no evidence of efficient protection against COVID from the mRNA vaccines. “The trials did not show a reduction in death even for COVID deaths as opposed to other causes,” he told the panel.
And when the state suppresses various early treatment measures and things like Ivermectin and pushes a narrow range of options (lockdowns, the vaccines, etc), then you know we are getting into dangerous territory. It is clear that Big Pharma has far too much power and influence here over the decisions of too many governments and politicians. Simply witnessing the new burgeoning crop of Big Pharma billionaires is testimony to all this.
(Please note: there are reams of facts, figures and research from medical and scientific experts offering alternative information to the mainstream narrative, enough to fill plenty of books already. Indeed, many new books have come out offering all this info and data. And plenty of short summary pieces exist which offer links to this research and evidence. Here is just one of them for starters.)
Despite widespread medical and scientific questions and doubts that arise here, the left slams anyone who dares to even try to give their voices a hearing. So much for the left and their concern about choice, autonomy, and freedom. I guess all that is a thing of the past.
Whatever happened to the left’s mantra about ‘my body, my choice’? If it is good enough to be used to kill a human being living inside of you, it should be good enough for an individual to resist the State forcing you to have a questionable substance injected into your body.
Never mind all the human rights declarations and human rights charters that ALL state perfectly clearly that there should be no coercion and compulsion in medicine, and that individuals have the full right to decide what treatments they take or refuse. I documented these many statements and declarations here.
And lefties: whatever happened to conscientious objection? Hey, I was once a hardcore lefty back in my radical youth. We championed the importance of conscientious objection. Don’t like the military or overseas wars? Then protest the government and try to avoid the draft by claiming the status of conscientious objection.
We even tried to say we could and should withhold all or part of our taxes so that we were not supporting the war effort and the military-industrial complex. All this was done on the solemn and important principle of conscientious objection.
Today plenty of people for all sorts of reasons have real concerns and questions about these new Covid vaccines. None that I know of are “anti-vaxxers”. They and I have had plenty of vaccines. What we are rightly concerned about are these new, rushed, experimental vaccines that have not even properly finished rigorous clinical trials yet, but are being pushed on us.
And those who are hesitant about this are now facing a totalitarian nightmare: losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their ability to feed their families, and all their basic human rights: the ability to travel, to congregate, to attend school, to get basic goods and services.
That is NOT choice. That is health care fascism. So where are all the lefties and libertarians and civil liberties folks when you need them? Where are their demands for choice and the importance of conscientious objection? Crickets chirping. Most of them are now full-tilt authoritarians, demanding that all individuals conform or else.
So much for personal autonomy. So much for the ability to choose. So much for the right to follow one’s conscience. ‘You WILL obey – or else.’ ‘Do as you are told or suffer the consequences.’ ‘The State will decide what is best for you.’ ‘We will choose for you.’
Goodbye, freedom. Goodbye, democracy. Goodbye, human rights. Welcome, Brave New World. And it is the left that is leading the charge here. How the tables have turned.
Afterword
Sadly, it is not just lefties who are now championing Big Brother tyranny, destructive lockdowns, and coercive health mandates. Some Christians and conservatives are doing this as well at times, whether because of fear and paranoia or whatever. But when they tell me that they believe in freedom and democracy, yet support all these horrific measures, then I must call into question their supposed support.
Here is the bottom line: if the State can get away with forcing people to have some substance injected into their bodies against their will, and with the masses readily embracing this, then there is nothing the State will not be able to do and to demand of the sheeple. This is about as tyrannical and dangerous as it gets. And we have seen all this happen before – just recall what took place in Germany in the 1930s.
Sorry, but if those who call themselves Christians and conservatives support this ugly Statist overreach, then they are not much different from the Big Brother-loving leftists.’https://caldronpool.com/leftists-are-the-real-enemies-of-freedom-and-choice/
‘Last week, the Republican National Committee (RNC) announced the “Pride Coalition.” The coalition is a partnership with the “Log Cabin Republicans,” an organization that describes itself as “LGBT conservatives and straight allies who support fairness, freedom, and equality for all.”
Although many find the move disheartening, it will only shock those who haven’t been paying attention. Al Mohler has described the relationship between Republicans and evangelicals as a “marriage of convenience.” In this case, marriage is a particularly painful and ironic metaphor.
And to be clear, the convenience in this marriage goes both ways. For many within the RNC, evangelicals are just one of several voting blocs, albeit an important one. For many evangelicals, the Grand Old Party (GOP) is simply a better fit than the alternative, given their stance on social issues like abortion, gender, and religious freedom. And, some on both sides are taken in by what quirky French theologian Jacques Ellul called “the political illusion.”
When all problems and all solutions are reduced to politics, all hope rests in gaining political power. Thus, when it comes to engaging in politics, Christians must always work to keep straight what are the means and what are the ends. A decision to partner with an LGBTQ group only makes sense if the “end” is to regain political power. The same decision, however, makes no sense if power is only the means and something else, such as limited government, is the end.
The problem with this coalition isn’t that some in the LGBTQ camp wish to support a political party of limited government. That’s been true for a long time. In contemporary politics’ pragmatic exercise, it never hurts to have unexpected allies vote for your candidate. However, welcoming voters to a political party is different than creating an alliance with a group that hopes to advance its own goals within a political platform. This particular coalition signals a change in the GOP’s platform and party positions, as well as broader changes in what it means to be “conservative.”
A core element of the GOP platform has long been so-called “family values,” sardonic shorthand for the party’s often inconsistently expressed and lived-out traditional moral framework. Key to this framework is the centrality of the nuclear family, the notion that marriage between one man and one woman who stay married is not merely a social construct but essential for both a healthy society and the wellbeing of the next generation. Therefore, it is the government’s task to protect the family, not redefine or deconstruct it. The more the government protects the family, the more non-governmental entities are able to collectively secure the future.
But, moral consensus around the nuclear family is only possible if it rests on grounds other than government. That requires grounding truth itself in something outside the government. Today, however, ours is what Os Guinness calls a “cut flower society.” Though we still have the trappings of so-called “family values,” no shared moral foundation remains for it. The quest for freedom has devolved into a pursuit for radical autonomy, especially in sexual matters.
All of which brings us back to this “coalition.” The RNC is mistaken to think that it is possible to be fiscally or politically conservative without, on some level, being culturally conservative first. You can’t have limited government while at the same time embracing a movement wishing to deconstruct and redefine marriage and the family since only the family reliably produces citizens able to govern themselves.
Whenever family fails, the state is compelled to step in. America’s founders, even with all their flaws, understood this. John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net.”
Chuck Colson was fond of saying: “The Kingdom of God will never arrive on Air Force One.” We vote how we must and do what we can to love our neighbors in political ways, but we must not put our hope in candidates or parties as if political power for our party is the end. In a Christian view, political ends are never ultimate ends.
Christians must maintain a clear-headed vision of the importance of social issues in the public arena. That means determining what is true theologically, first, and then letting political chips fall where they may. As my friend, Focus on the Family president Jim Daly put it, “We must, lovingly and winsomely, never stop contending for the things that matter to God.” Family and marriage matter to God.’https://www.breakpoint.org/the-rncs-pride-coalition/
