Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide to Jesusland

David E. Jeffers

Copyright © 2006 by David E. Jeffers

Understanding Evangelicals

by David E. Jeffers

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 1-60034-487-9

All rights reserved solely by the author. The author guaran- tees all contents are original and do not infringe upon the legal rights of any other person or work. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the author. The views expressed in this book are not neces- sarily those of the publisher.

Unless otherwise indicated, Bible quotations are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 2004 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

www.xulonpress.com

Acknowledgments

To many people to thank and so little space! If I leave you off and you deserve to be mentioned, please forgive me and accept my love and appreciation. To my life partner, best friend, and darling wife, Karen, I love being your husband! Every time I look at you I am inspired to do my best. Thanks for believing in me, for supporting me, and for encouraging me! You sustain me daily and my life has never been the same since God blessed me with you.

To my children, Tiffany, Eddie, and Becky, you three make me want to be a better man. As a father I’ve tried to be your protector and provider, to show what godliness is supposed to look like and to love my wife “as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.” I pray that my girls know what a husband is supposed to look like and that my son, already a husband, is supposed to be. I pray that I have not failed in this endeavor.

To my brother Stephen and sisters Tina, Mary, and Theresa, I love you all dearly. I’m sorry I’ve not always been there for you, but life seems to somehow take over and we allow the busyness of life, what I call the shame of the modern world, to overcome us. Please know that you have never been far from my heart. To my beloved mother Lillian and father Eugene, and oldest sister Kathy, I know you are with the King right now in all your glory! Halleluiah! Although I miss all three of you terribly, I know you wouldn’t leave Heaven even if you could. Stay there, I’ll see you soon. I love you three so much! To all the children of my siblings, I’ve not been the uncle you deserve; know that I am always here for you. To Randy and John Henderson, my cousins, man we had some fun growing up, let’s continue it in His Kingdom!

To my wife’s brother Randy Ritchie and his wife Barbara, I cherish the wonderful Christian fellowship we share. To your incredible daughter Faith and her husband Bernie Joyner, you guys are treasures to me. What a joy it is for Karen and I to be a part of you and little Anneliese’s lives. To Kyle Ritchie, although we’ve not spent the time we would like, know that your Aunt Karen and I are always here for you.

To my pastor Dr. Dennis Brunet, you are the godliest man I know. Your love for Christ and His church, for your wife and your children, your love for Scripture and fearless preaching of it, are a beacon of light and a clarion call in a dark, dark world. Further, I consider it no less an honor bestowed on me from Jesus Himself to call you my friend. There is no way my walk with Christ would be where it is today without your leadership. May God continue to use you mightily!

To my awesome church family, Midway Baptist Church in Gulf Breeze, Florida, I love you all. The day Karen, Tiffany, and I walked into this church we knew within five minutes we were home. Every time that Eddie and Becky have come to visit, you have made them feel so welcomed. To Brothers Greg Pyle and Jeremiah Canfield, thank you for allowing me to be a part of your ministries. What an awesome privilege to serve with such godly men! To my Sunday school class, thank you so much for your love, prayers, encouragement, and support. To my many, many brothers in Christ, I will not even attempt to list any for fear of leaving any out, but you all know who you are. Midway Baptist Church is an awesome place to be a man! To the wonderful women of Midway, lead by Rebekah Brunet, you are setting the example for godly women. To the youth of Midway, you are truly becoming Champions for Christ.

To my childhood best friend and as of the last 8 years, my brother in Christ Jesus, Don Roberts and his awesome wife and my sister in Christ Suzie, thanks so much for always, always being there for me, before and after our conversions. Man, I can’t wait to hang out with you guys in Heaven for eternity!

To two amazing brothers in Christ Jesus, Bill Malley and Mike Woeckener, you two will one day understand, when we are in glory, what impact you have had on my life. Through good and bad times, you two were never far from my heart, always a city of refuge for me. I could think of no other men, for their intellectual and biblical knowledge, better equipped to act as my editors. Thank you so much for your time, energy, expertise, love, and guidance throughout this endeavor. I am forever indebted to you.

Last and most important, to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, You are my King, my Redeemer, my Rock, and my Salvation. May this book be a pleasing aroma to you. I pray that this qualifies to hear you say, “Well done my good and faithful servant.” There are no other words I long to hear more. God willing this book will be used in some small way to spread your gospel and further your kingdom. I love you Jesus!

Contents

- Title

- Copyright

- Acknowledgments

Introduction

Chapter 1

Who are Evangelicals?

Chapter 2

The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God

Chapter 3

There Is Absolute Truth

Chapter 4

Opposition to Abortion

Chapter 5

No Same-Sex Marriage

Chapter 6

Education

Chapter 7

Economics

Chapter 8

Foreign Affairs

Chapter 9

Military

Chapter 10

One Nation Under God

Introduction

One of the immediate results of the 2004 General Election in the United States was the notion of “Jesusland.” This came about from the exit polls where twenty-two percent of the voters stated they based their vote on moral issues. Almost immediately the concept of Jesusland sprang up on the Internet.

Many liberal blogger sites, commentators, and politicians began denigrating the fact that conservatives had won the elec- tion and that opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage were the two most quoted concerns about the moral state of America. Liberals began talking about joining the United States of Canada and leaving Jesusland to the rednecks and religious right.

The actual idea came one day after the election and is attributed to one G. Webb of yakyak.org. Its creation has been incorrectly attributed to many different individuals, most notably Michael Moore.1

Another bandied about theory was Democrats needed to learn how to talk about religion. Most Democrats see Republicans as manipulators of the Religious Right, using a religious “code” that only evangelical Christians can under- stand. This leads to the belief that Republicans do not have any substance and only use evangelicals as political pawns. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This book is one evangelical’s attempt to help all inter- ested parties understand who evangelicals are, what we stand for, what we believe, and what values drives those beliefs. It is the author’s hope and prayer that this “Guide to Jesusland” will remove the misplaced fear that all evangelicals are intol- erant and that it is “us against them.”

A secondary purpose for this book is to encourage evan- gelicals by providing a more thorough understanding of what we believe and how important it is to be an active, voting member of society; to be the “salt and light of the earth” that Jesus called us to be. Please join me on a journey through Jesusland.

1Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

CHAPTER 1

Who are Evangelicals?

Dictionary.com defines evangelical as “Of, relating to, or being a Christian believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. One holding evangelical principles to an evangelical party or church.”

Evangel in the Greek means “good news” and evangelist in the Greek means “messenger of good news.” The Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines evangelist as “a preacher of the Gospel, which makes clear the distinctiveness of the function in the churches.”

Ask any person on the street or in your local shopping mall what the word evangelical means to them, and you will get a number of responses. Many people conjure up pictures of Jerry Falwell (Moral Majority), Rick Warren (The Purpose Driven Life), and James Dobson (Focus on the Family). Some immediately think of a somewhat seedier element, that of the televangelist with his hand held out promising blessings if you will only give to their ministry.

While all of the above are representative of evangelicals, both good and bad, it is only a public persona and not the complete picture. Evangelicals are your family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and bosses. In other words, they are everywhere!

Many people have an adverse reaction to the word evangelical because of the negative public persona. The everincreasing political influence of evangelicals cause many to shudder at the thought of our government being run by the Christian whackos.

Here is just one example found at the blog site, Bush America, of the lament from mostly liberals of Christians running the nation: “Sadly, November 2000 put this great nation on a track of destruction. Four years later the fundamentalist whack-jobs used fear and a tangle of lies to scare people into voting for nut bag again.”1

This is one of the tamer comments found on the Internet when conducting a Google search on “crazy evangelicals.” Many evangelicals chuckle at this type of hysteria, but this fear and loathing is what is causing such a great social divide. This concern should not be dismissed by evangelicals but lovingly and directly addressed. Let’s look at the voting issue.

DO EVANGELICALS VOTE?

Yes, evangelicals do indeed vote. According to the Barna Group, “although they are just 7% of the voting-aged population, evangelicals constituted 11% of the voters and chose President Bush by an 85% to 15% margin.”2 Clearly, evangelicals had an outcome on the 2004 election. But more is possible!

Best estimates show that 27.1 million evangelicals voted in 2004, which is a phenomenal 80% of eligible evangelical voters. President Bush received an amazing 78% of the evangelical vote. While many religious and conservative leaders are satisfied with this outcome, imagine the possibilities?

What if every eligible evangelical voted as is biblically mandated? Jesus taught, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” â€” Matthew 5:14-16

Verse 16 where Jesus says “let your light so shineâ€¦” is not a recommendation but a commandment. Wherever a Christian does not obey a commandment he or she is being disobedient. A Christian, who does not vote, for whatever reason, is disobeying Christ commanding us to let our light shine before men. We must be involved in the affairs of our country.

Contrary to atheists, secularists, the Liberal Left, and anyone else against openly religious people, the teaching of Jesus instructs us to come forth and shine our light, our Christianity, in the open. The field of politics is no different.

Charles G. Finney, the great 18th Century revivalist credited with spearheading the Second Great Awakening in America, said this about Christians participating in politics:

The church must take right ground in regard to politics . . . The time has come for Christians to vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics, or the Lord will curse them . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country that we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to God . . . God will bless or curse this nation according to the course Christians take in politics.3

Suppose Christians take the Reverend Finney to heart? What would have happened if every eligible evangelical voted in 2004? As stated above, if indeed 27.1 million evangelicals voted, representing 80% of eligible evangelical voters. That leaves an astounding 6.775 million who did not vote!

Furthermore, if the voting pattern of 2004 were to hold true amongst the remaining evangelical voters, George Bush would have received 5,284,500 more votes and John Kerry would have received 1,490,500 more votes. Instead of a margin of victory of 3,012,497 votes for a 51 â€“ 48 percent split, President Bush would have been reelected by a margin of 6,806,497 votes, nearly double the amount for a 52.6 -

47.3 percent split. These numbers are all estimates based on available data.

A DIFFERENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

The above numbers certainly do not provide aid and comfort to atheists, secularists, and the Liberal Left who want to limit evangelical influence in politics, but it should be a clarion call to conservatives and Christians alike.

All of those remaining evangelicals could directly impact not only the national elections, but also at the state and local level. It is clearly unknown what the outcomes would be at the state and local level, but nearly 7 million new voters are going to be a most coveted prize.

So how would this new bounty of voters be courted? First and foremost, values would be emphasized. The Democratic Party is still trying to determine its values. Notice the following comments:

After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.

Los Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 2004

We have a hard time deciding what our core values are and what are the issues. Howard Dean gets that. He’s going around the country talking to people.

DNC Vice Chairman Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif. to Wyoming State Democrats

I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist...who doesn’t share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.

Senator John Kerry

Democrats, at times, have lost their way. We’re trying to decide what our core values are.

Senator Barack Obama

The above four quotes clearly explain the divide between the evangelical voting bloc and the Democratic Party. Evangelicals do not need to define their stance on abortion; they are anti-abortion. When the Democratic Party attempts “to redefine its position,” it is an obvious shallow attempt “to appeal to a broader array of voters.” That is exactly why the majority of evangelicals do not vote for Democrats.

Evangelicals do not “have a hard time deciding what our core values are and what are the issues.” Evangelicals believe in moral absolutes and the inerrancy of the Bible, a strong military, a free-market economy, traditional marriage, and that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is all over the political spectrum on these issues. That is exactly why, as Senator Obama says “Democrats, at times, have lost their way.” Unlike Democrats, evangelicals do not need “to decide what our core values are.”

LEARNING THE LANGUAGE

To fully understand the mystery that evangelicals are Democrats, one only need to look towards their consultants. One particular consultant is Dr. George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist and linguist. Dr. Lakoff believes that Republicans are better at getting their message across because they have spent decades defining their ideas and carefully choosing how to present them.4

If Dr. Lakoff is to be believed, then evangelicals can be swayed by “religious talk.” It sounds as though Dr. Lakoff is advocating that Democrats do a better job of marketing their religiosity. Note to Dr. Lakoff: whenever a politician tries to come off as “religious,” it is an obvious attempt to pander votes.

The hard truth for many on the Left is that most evangelicals make up their political minds based off of the facts and the beliefs of the candidates. Evangelicals have a “higher calling” and are expected to elect candidates that have high moral standards.

Many on the Left could not understand why evangelicals were all in an uproar over President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Many on the Left were saying, “it’s a personal thing” or “it’s not about a crime, it’s about sex.” Evangelicals were accused of being obsessed with the President’s personal life.

Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, a non-profit Christian family advocacy organization, wrote this about the 42nd president:

When assessing the legacy of Bill Clinton, we can’t overlook his shameful sexual behavior in the Oval Office, and then, his lies under oath to the American people to cover it up. Indeed, it is my belief that no man has ever done more to debase the presidency or to undermine our Constitutionâ€”and particularly the moral and biblical principles upon which it is basedâ€”than has William Jefferson Clinton. Even after the infamous blue dress surfaced and the grand jury forced him to admit having an adulterous relationship with “that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” he brushed it off as a personal mistake.5

Dr. Dobson has put his finger on the heart of Jesusland! Most evangelicals consider what Bill Clinton did as a debasement to the presidency and an underming of “our constitutionâ€”and particularly the moral and biblical principles upon which it is based.”

Until politicians on the Left come to grips with the fact that evangelicals are values-based voters, values based on biblical morality, the Democratic Party is never going “to appeal to a broader array of voters,” at least not the majority of evangelical voters.

IT’S NOT LANGUAGE, IT’S A LIFESTYLE

Evangelicals believe in moral absolutes as outlined in the Bible. We will look at absolute truth in chapter 3, but this is the crux of the problem for those on the Left. Let it be known that this author wholeheartedly believes there are Democrats who believe in biblical moral absolutes and hold strong evangelical beliefs. Many of these Democrats are old “Reagan Democrats,” and many of them voted for President Bush.

Having said that, whenever an evangelical espouses his or her morality, most on the Left recoil at this and demand that evangelicals not try to push their religious values on the rest of the country. In other words, we as evangelicals are free to believe what we want, we are just not allowed to bring them into the public sector.

Here is where the Left is missing the point completely: evangelicals bring their religious values into the public sector because they have adopted a biblical lifestyle. Evangelicals believe the Bible permeates all components of life.

This is exactly what concerns not only those on the Liberal Left, but also many in the Democratic Party considered to be moderates. Former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who worked for both Presidents Carter and Clinton, states that although both these men were Christians, “they did not make their religious views part of American policy,”

In fact, Ms. Albright is concerned with President Bush’s open Christianity:

“President Bush’s certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different,” said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. “The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us.”6

If Ms. Albright is speaking for “some of us” Democrats and those on the Left or in the mainstream, then we have discovered the core issue in the language problem. Evangelicals believe in absolute truth, good versus evil, and it is these beliefs that Ms. Albright and her political allies find “worrying.” Evangelicals find “President Bush’s certitude about what he believes in” one of the main reasons they elected and then reelected him.

Evangelicals do not have, although many do anyway, the alternative of compartmentalizing their moral and religious values to Sunday only and leaving it in their homes and churches the rest of the week. Again, Jesus has called us to be the salt and light of the earth.

So what does it mean for an evangelical to adopt a biblical lifestyle, to view all aspects of life from a biblical perspective? First and foremost, evangelicals believe that the Bible is without error and is to be applied to all areas of life. This concept will be covered in more detail in chapter 2.

This type of belief not only will get you attacked by the Left, but also if you are on “The O’Reilly Factor,” you will be labeled as a “religious fanatic” for taking the Bible literally, as was Stephen Bennett on Sept. 3, 2002.

Evangelicals believe in regeneration through faith in Jesus Christ. That means that all religions do not lead to God. Evangelicals take literally Jesus’ words in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Now Mr. O’Reilly is a self-described Christian, as are

80% of Americans, but evangelicals who hold to classic fundamental beliefs hold to this gospel doctrine. This belief, along with the Resurrection, is not a belief that is up for debate.

If Dr. Lakoff and the rest of the Democratic Party is interested in “learning the language” of evangelicals, they will have to, if not embrace, at least respect this belief. Most of the time, however, this belief in the exclusiveness of Christ is considered intolerant and fanatic.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is counseling fellow Democrats to have faith in their ability to attract evangelical voters. “Our Democratic values are American values,” Dean said. “Most people in this county, including evangelicals, think it’s immoral to let children go to bed hungry at night. They think it’s immoral not to have everyone in some kind of health insurance.” 7

Evangelicals also think it is immoral to kill children in the womb, but the abortion issue is almost a sacred right to the Democratic Party. (More on that in chapter 4.)

Amy Langdon, executive director of the Oregon Republican Party, said Democrats are so out of step with religious voters on issues such as abortion and gay marriage that the approach has little chance of working. “I think they’ll be hard-pressed to make the case to the faith community that somehow the Democratic Party serves their interests,” she said.8

This is where Democrats are missing the mark. Evangelicals already know what is in the Democratic Party Platform. The party platform supports a women’s right to an abortion and affirmative action, two stances that are in direct conflict with the majority of evangelicals. The party platform also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, by far the number one political goal for evangelicals.

A CLOSER LOOK AT JESUSLAND

These issues and many more that will be covered in this book are at the heart of who evangelicals are. Evangelicals are not going to be swayed by some cleverly packaged “religious talk.” No amount of focus groups or polling is going to address the real divide between the majority of evangelicals and the Democratic Party. Evangelicals live what they believe, a lifestyle based on a conservative, religious foundation that can only be experienced, not merely addressed.

So on what is this conservative, religious foundation based? It is based on the very book that is publicly under attack, the Bible. Let’s see how evangelicals view the Bible.

1Source: http://www.bushsamerica.com/index.php?cat=25

2The Barna Update, November 9, 2004, The Barna

3William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, FAME Publishing, 1994, p.235.

4Source:http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

5Dr. Dobson’s Newsletter: February 2001. http://www. family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0014687.cfm

6Source:http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/22/albright.bush.reut/index.html

7Associated Press. May 30, 2006

8Ibid.

CHAPTER 2

The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God

What may be surprising to some is that evangelicals and Republicans are not the only people who believe the Bible is accurate and trustworthy. Although 72% of Republicans polled in 2004 believe in the accuracy of the Bible, 64% of Democrats believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings.1

What about Americans as a whole? In 2005, 45% of all American adults agreed strongly that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings.2 We are not just talking about evangelicals, but American adults in general. It is astounding that nearly half of American adults believe in the complete accuracy of the Bible. I wonder what Bill O’Reilly would think of this statistic?

There is not complete consensus within the evangelical community. Of self-described born-again Christians polled, 11% did not believe that the Bible was totally accurate in its teachings. The Bible is considered by all evangelical Christians to be the inspired foundation of all we believe.

But what about the inerrancy issue; what does “inerrancy” actually mean?

WITHOUT ANY KIND OF ERROR

Inerrancy is described as “the belief that the Bible contains no errors of any kind.3 The question that prob ably comes to mind is, why would anyone believe this? It is because the Bible teaches this about itself.

Both Old and New Testaments speak to the Bible’s inerrancy and one of the most quoted verses is 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thor oughly equipped for every good work.

The key word in this passage is “all.” That means evangeli cals cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to use. This has been described as a “Cafeteria Christianity.” This passage does not allow us to discard those teachings that may be considered “intolerant,” “radical,” or “fanatic.” We must apply all the Bible to all areas of our lives.

One argument against the accuracy of the Bible is that is was written by a group of men. While it is true that men were used as God’s instruments to write the Bible, the words are inspired by God Himself. These words were not only inspired by God, but He also protected them through the ages. Jesus said in Matthew 5:18:

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Church history has proved this truth out. For more than two thousand years theologians have stood by the inerrancy of the Bible.

If the Bible is rejected as being inerrant, or worse yet, only parts of it are accurate then we eventually will reach a point where we decide what is right and what is wrong. The prevailing belief is that what is right or wrong is an individual choice; if I believe it then it is true for…me. What we are talking about is moral relativism versus absolute truth. More on that in the next chapter, but this is ground that most evangelicals are unwilling to concede. And this unwilling ness to compromise on this issue comes from the belief that the Bible is without error. When trying to understand evan gelicals, this is a key starting point.

SO YOU SAY!

Some of you may be thinking nothing so far proves the inerrancy of the Bible. That’s fair so let’s look at the evidence that supports the Bible’s accuracy. Can the Bible’s accuracy be proven historically? Space does not allow a complete analysis of the Bible, but a quick review of the historicity of the New Testament will show that the Gospels themselves are historically valid. Whenever the historical validity of a document is examined, it undergoes three tests: bibliograph ical, internal evidence, and external evidence.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST

First, the bibliographical test looks at how the original document got to us, in others words, how much time and distance is between the original and the copies? Philosophy courses rely on the writings of Plato when covering subjects such as metaphysics, mysticism, and existentialism, to name a few. The historical validity of these documents is rarely questioned. The earliest extant manuscripts of Plato’s writ ings are 1300 years after the original writing.

Another classic author whose writings are widely accepted is Demosthenes. He is generally recognized as the greatest of ancient Greek orators. The time span between his original writings and the extant copies is said to be 1200 years. Finally, the classic plays of Sophocles are considered to be complete and the time span between his writings and the earliest manuscripts is 1400 years.

The point of these three examples is that if the New Testament cannot be trusted historically, then neither can any of these classical writings. The time span between the original manuscripts of the New Testament Gospels and the extant copies is between 250-300 years!

Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, formerly director and principal librarian of the British Museum, said the following of the New Testament documents:

In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.4

If still not convinced and questioning the authenticity of the

New Testament documents, Sir Kenyon addresses this also:

The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.5

If we refuse to accept the bibliographical evidence of the New Testament documents, then all other ancient documents must be denied also.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE

When testing the historical and literary accuracy of a document, the benefit of the doubt is allowed to the document itself. Under this allowance, we are to listen to the docu ment’s claims. If the author(s) of a document is to believed, then what the writer says about the inspiration for the writing is considered reliable. The authors of the New Testament, almost to a man, claims personal eyewitness testimony or the recorded testimony of eyewitness.6

Not only are eyewitness accounts strong evidence for the historical accuracy of the New Testament, but what is not in the Bible also speaks to its accuracy. One of Jesus’ prophecies was the destruction of the Temple:

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Matthew 24:1-2

How is it that a fulfilled prophecy, one that would prove that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, is not covered in the New Testament? It is because the event took place after most letters, if not all, are believed to have been written! The New Testament writers could record that Jesus uttered the prophecy, what they couldn’t record was that the prophecy had been fulfilled because the temple was destroyed AFTER the document had been written. This biblical fact is internal proof of the historicity of the New Testament.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

The external evidence test asks if “other historical mate rials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?”7

One needs to look no further than the Gospel of Luke for outside historical proof. Luke painstakingly dates his gospel by addressing certain historical facts when writing of Jesus’ birth. The external evidence easily confirms these historical facts.

Another example of external evidence is the writings of Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons. While writing his famous Against Heresies around AD 180, Irenaeus provides the first explicit witness to a four-fold gospel canon. He writes, “But that these Gospels alone are true and reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminuation of the aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such [arguments].”8 Irenaeus’ accounts are strong because he heard these firsthand from Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John.

By far the most persuasive historical account of the exis tence of the New Testament is given in AD 130 by Papias, bishop of Heropolis. Papias confirmed that Matthew wrote his gospel “in the Hebrew tongue.” Papias also wrote on information he received firsthand from the “Elder” (Apostle) John:

The Elder used to say this also: Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ; not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way, some things as he [Peter] mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them.9

If the New Testament documents are given a fair historical test, it is indisputable and undeniably that they are from the first century and are indeed firsthand accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

STATEMENTS OF FAITH

It is because of the historical accuracy that most evangelicals believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. A quick look at just a few denominational and organizational statements of faith will better illustrate this point:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

The Baptist Faith and Message110

The church confesses the Scriptures to be the Word of God written, witnessing to God’s self-revelation. Where that Word is read and proclaimed, Jesus Christ the Living Word is present by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the reading, hearing, preaching, and confessing of the Word are central to Christian worship. The session shall ensure that in public worship the Scripture is read and proclaimed regularly in the common language(s) of the particular church.11 (Book of Order W-2.2001)

Quoted from the Presbyterian Practice

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.12

National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith

Admittedly, there is some disagreement in evangelical circles to whether the Bible is inerrant or infallible, with the latter meaning “limited inerrancy.” Infallibility has been defined, as “the Bible makes no false or misleading state ments about matters of faith and practice.”13

This minor debate about the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture does not affect the evangelical belief that Scripture is the inspired word of God. Personally, it seems this type of debate is not a doctrinal issue and is irrelevant to the purpose of this chapter. Evangelicals believe in the authority of the Bible.

FOUNDATIONAL TRUTHS

If a true understanding of evangelicals is desired, it must be on the basis of how we view Scripture. We vote based on what we believe and our beliefs are founded in the truth of God’s Word. As we continue on this journey through Jesusland, all of the topics must be covered in the light of Scripture. Regardless of your personal opinion of the Bible, a healthy respect for it is required to acquire an honest under standing of evangelicals.

We’ve already seen how Madeline Albright finds President Bush’s belief in absolute truth worrying, but postmodernists outright reject absolute truth. There are many explanations for postmodernism, but Stanley Grenz in A Primer on Postmodernism states it most clearly:

Postmodernism affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate . . . There is no absolute truth: rather truth is relative to the community in which we participate.14

Every aspect of society is infected with postmodernist thinking, including the church. These two diverging belief systems are at the center of the culture war we are currently experiencing. We will take a close look at this culture clash in the next chapter.

TASTE AND SEE

Before we move on to the next chapter, I want to take a moment to talk to you personally. If you have found anything I have written about Scripture to be interesting, I encourage you to read the Bible. If you are genuinely inter ested in finding the truth, search the Bible. Psalm 34:8 says, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man who trusts in Him!”

If you do not know where to start, I encourage you to learn about Jesus’ life by reading the Gospel of John. If you love

wisdom then the Books of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are known as the Wisdom Books. Of course the Book of Genesis, being the first book of the Bible is always a good place to start, especially if you are inter ested in the Creationist view or want to better understand it.

If you do search the Bible for the first time, I would love to hear from you. Please contact me at the website on the back cover and let me know how your discovery went. Also, if this has renewed your hunger for Scripture, I would also love to hear from you. Lastly, I’ve provided a suggested reading list to help both evangelicals and interested parties to further your study in this field.

Further Reading

McDowell, Josh. More Than A Carpenter. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1980

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1999

Montgomery, John Warwick. History and Christianity. Bloomington, MN; Bethany House Publisher. 1964

1 The Barna Group of Ventura, California, www.barna.org

2 Ibid.

3 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI. 273

4 John Warwick Montgomery. From History and Christianity. Bethany House Publishers, 1964. 26-27.

5 Ibid. 28.

6 Ibid. 29-30.

7 Ibid. 32.

8 Source: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil13.html

9 John Warwick Montgomery. 32

10 Southern Baptist Convention Official Website. Statement of Faith and Message. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

11 Presbyterian Church USA. Presbyterian 101. http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-bible.htm

12 National Association of Evangelicals. Mission Statement. http://wwww.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.mission

13 Public Services – Social, Religious, Scientific, Products, and Services. Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible. From website: http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm

14 Grenz, S. J., A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 8.

CHAPTER 3

There Is Absolute Truth

My nephew Michael, who has the most intellectual potential of all my family, was almost incredulous when I told him I believed in absolute truth. He wondered out loud how a man with so much intelligence (his words not mine) could believe in absolute truth. Fair question! Especially in this postmodern world we live in, how does anyone actually believe in absolute truth?

First, let’s establish a working definition of absolute truth, the same one I used with my nephew. Absolute truth is something that is true at all times, to all people, everywhere. This is similar to the one Josh McDowell, co-author of Right From Wrong, uses:

Absolute truth is that which is true for all people, for all times, for all places. Absolute truth is truth that is objective, universal, and constant.1

Agreed? So here’s the question, is there anywhere in the world where I could, for example, walk up to a patron of an outside café, a complete stranger, pull out a pistol, put it to his or her head, and pull the trigger? No? Why not? Because it’s murder? You sure? This looks like an absolute truth to me!

Now some postmodernists will stretch their belief to say, “Well murder has always been wrong in any community.” Oh really? Is it wrong in the gang community or was it wrong in parts of the Wild West? No, it isn’t wrong to these people. They believed only the strong survived, so murder was okay in their community. Am I over simplifying this? Yes, and that is what is needed. Too much confusion has been wrought because of moral relativism.

MORAL RELATIVISM

Since there are many definitions of relativism, let’s establish our working definition of relativism. Dictionary. com defines relativism as “a theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”

I would love to say that evangelicals summarily dismiss this belief, but there is much confusion within the Christian community, especially with our youth. Clearly, the churched youth know that the Bible is the resource for moral authority (72%), but less than half (44%) believe that they are able to determine absolute truth. Why is this? Josh McDowell writes:

Only 15 percent of churched youth disagree with the statement: “What is right for one person in a given situation might not be right for another person who encounters the same situation.” In other words, 85 percent of churched kids are liable to reason, “Just because it’s wrong for you doesn’t mean it’s wrong for me.” Their idea of the distinction between right and wrong is fluid, something that is subject to change, something that is relative and personal—not constant and universal.2

One of the main complaints of the majority of evangelicals, and with good reason, is that secularists, atheists, and the Liberal Left embrace moral relativism. But when we look at our own children, evangelicals learn that they are losing in the battle for our children’s minds. Also disturbing is that of born-again adult Christians polled in 2002, only

32% believed that moral truth is unchanging.3

Talk about confused! Two-thirds of born-again adult Christians, people who believe in the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ when it comes to salvation, do not believe that truth is unchanging. Even more disturbing is that 54% of born-again Christians believe that moral truth is dependent on the situation they are facing.4

We have come to a point in our country where if a person believes there is absolute truth, he or she is accused of trying to push that perspective on others. I recall watching the now defunct CNBC “Dennis Miller” show. Mr. Miller had a segment he called “The Varsity,” where he would assemble three members of the media or the entertainment sector and get their views on hot topics.

The name of the woman who was on a particular episode escapes me, but I will never forget what she said about President Bush. She was “troubled” by his use of the word “evil” because if gives off “religious connotations.” We have got to a point in our country that we are unwilling to use the word “evil,” much less give it credence, for fear of acknowledging religion!

Now so far I’ve been somewhat tough on Bill O’Reilly, but for the most part, Mr. O’Reilly has lead the charge

against moral relativism. In his column dated July 11, 2002, Mr. O’Reilly wrote:

A recent Zogby poll says that 75 percent of American college seniors report that their professors teach there is no such thing as right and wrong in the literal sense. The poll taken for the National Association of Scholars reveals that teachers address the issues of good and evil in terms of “individual values and cultural diversity.”5

Mr. O’Reilly went on to write that he was not surprised by this moral relativism on college campuses, he was hearing it from his professors back in the ‘70s. It is no secret that the majority of American universities, and now many high schools, are bastions of professors who revile anyone who espouses traditional, Christian beliefs. More on that in chapter 6.

Only the intellectually dishonest will say that Christianity is not under attack in the public arena. Clearly there is a move amongst secular America to remove Christ from the public arena. The 2005 Christmas season is just one prime example of how after 230 years of existence, open Christian displays are now a threat to some Americans. John Gibson, host Fox News’ The Big Story and author of The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought said the following:

So in The War on Christmas I expose how that casual, accepted anti-Christian bias shows up once a year around Christmas when people in positions of petty power, such as school administrators, or municipal-hall managers, will suddenly pop up saying things like “We can’t have that Christmas tree in here because it’s too Christian.” I had a long discussion with a city human-resources manager who said precisely that. What I find shocking is that people like that man do not hear the sound of their voices. Substitute any other religion for the word “Christian” and these very people would be up in arms with the cry of prejudice and bias, but if the bias is directed at Christians, it is perfectly acceptable.6

I know many people do not understand our “Christian hypersensitivity,” but one of our most sacred Christian holidays is under attack. Evangelicals are convinced that this is because of political correctness and moral relativism.

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Moral relativists would have you believe that what is right for you is not necessarily right for me. I should be able to do whatever makes me happy, and no one has the right to tell me otherwise. And I don’t want to be imposed upon by your belief system. We can just determine our own morality. Where’s the harm in that? Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcy, writing in How Now Shall We Live, sum it up this way:

The problem is that relativism provides no sure foundation for a safe and orderly society. If all people are free to choose for themselves what is right, how can a society agree on, and enforce, even minimal standards? And if there is no ultimate moral law, what motivation is there to be virtuous? The result is the loss of community. If you thought your neighbors had no clear definition of right and wrong, would you sleep well at night or let your children play in their yard?7

Does this lack of a “sure foundation” mean that instead of “a safe and orderly society” we are seeing society’s moral decay? Evangelicals would answer an emphatic “yes!” This may be obvious to evangelicals, but it is clearly a puzzle to many relativists. Vern and Bonnie Bullough, writing for Humanism Today questions the ability to determine moral decay:

Before we can determine whether there is a moral decay we have to ask what is right conduct, what is meant by right and wrong, and what determines whether a person is righteous, just, virtuous, and good. This is an impossible task, one that the editors of the dictionary avoided by defining everything in general terms. When someone says that there is moral decay, it might be clear to that person what he or she means, but it is not necessarily clear to anyone else. For example, the changing level of tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality might be one person’s definition of moral decay and be interpreted by another person as an important moral step forward.8

The Bulloughs have made Mr. Colson’s case. Under their own admission, these humanists prove that if we have moral relativism it is impossible to determine what is right or wrong and thus the inability to identify moral decay. That is almost too convenient. How is it that in one generation we have moved from knowing the difference between right and wrong to it being “an impossible task?” Simple: a lack of absolute truth. It’s time to get back to the basics of life.

THE BASICS OF LIFE

We’ve turned the page, for a new day has dawned

We’ve re-arranged what is right and what’s wrong

Somehow we’ve drifted so far from the truth

That we can’t get back home

Where are the virtues that once gave us light Where are

the morals that governed our lives Someday we all will

awake and look back just to find what we’ve lost

We need to get back To the

basics of life A heart that is pure

And a love that is blind A faith

that is fervently grounded in Christ

The hope that endures for all times

These are the basics, we need to

get back To the basics of life

--From the song, “The Basics of Life” by 4HIM

Those lyrics are from one of my favorite songs by one of my favorite Christian groups. These four men, Mark Harris, Andy Chrisman, Kirk Sullivan, and Marty Magahee are for a lack of a better term, singing evangelists. They present the gospel of Jesus Christ and this song, “The Basics of Life,” is a definite crowd pleaser. My wife Karen and I had the pleasure of seeing their farewell concert in Jacksonville, FL, and when they sang this song, the crowd sang along as though it was everyone’s deepest longing. I know it was mine.

Evangelicals know that absolute truth exists in the world not only because the Bible says so, but also because we experience it. As the song says, without absolute truth we end up drifting “so far from the truth,” so much so that determining truth is an impossible task for many.

Kirk sings that “someday we all will awake and look back just to find what we’ve lost.” You may be surprised to know that song was recorded in 1992. I would say we are discovering exactly what we’ve lost.

I said earlier that evangelicals struggle with the concept of absolute truth when applying it situationally, but that has as much to do with the postmodern world we live in as it does the lack of discipleship on the evangelical’s part. For this confusion to be cleared up, we will have to return to our Judeo-Christian roots, the basics of life if you will, because Christianity provides the absolute law that allows us to determine right from wrong.

Now this I’m sure scares many people because here come the morality police, peeking into bedroom windows and censuring anything that doesn’t meet the biblical standard. Do I really need to dispute that exaggeration? I’m not saying there’s not going to be debate on moral issues; there will always be. What I am saying is that having a final standard to measure by will allow us to determine if we are experiencing moral decay. Evangelicals already have this standard and that is why most of us believe this great country is obviously in moral decline.

It’s really quite a simple concept. When you have and agree with a fundamental standard to live by, outside of your personal opinion, you can actually determine whether something is right or wrong. Why? Because using the definition at the start of this chapter, absolute truth is something that is true at all times, to all people, everywhere. It’s like having a morality ruler, you can measure truth with it.

PICK UP YOUR CROSS

This last part of this chapter is intended as an encouragement for Evangelicals, but everyone else is free to look in. We the people, the United States of America, are in the shape we are in because the church has usurped its “right ground,” as Rev. Finney described it, and have given it up to the secularists, atheists, postmodernists, and whomever is willing to occupy that ground. How did this happen? Where did the church go while this was all happening?

Tragically, we became so entrenched in our own battles that we forgot our highest calling, what Jesus called the Great Commission. It is our job to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. Too often we view this as sending out missionaries to the remotest villages of Africa. While this is indeed part of the mission field, America is the immediate battleground for evangelicals.

Jesusland was dreamed up from someone’s lament that we evangelicals were taking over the country. For the time being, I would say they have little to fear. While Christians in dangerous parts of the world are risking their very lives to spread the good news, we Americans run the risk of ridicule for sharing and living our faith. And what do most of us do when we are faced with ridicule, when we’re called intolerant, or judgmental, or a religious fanatic? We cower in fear. This has to stop! We have a much greater fear to be concerned about:

Whenever He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 8:34-38

I am willing to face the ridicule, criticism, and anything else a world hostile to Jesus has to offer. This doesn’t make me a man of extraordinary strength or faith, it makes me a man who does not want to run the risk of being denied by Jesus before the Father. If I was operating on fear alone, that would be enough; but I’m not. I don’t want to see our great country waste away like every other democracy before us. I’m not willing to disobey the Lord by not being the salt and light of the earth. I want to hear my Jesus say, “Well done good and faithful servant…enter into your joy” (Matt. 25:21)

RISKY BUSINESS

I’m not sure who I lost after that mini-sermonette, but I want all readers to be prepared for where we are going next. To the evangelical, we are going to look at some topics that we are fearful of debating and quite frankly, are not very knowledgeable of in many cases.

To the non-Christian reader, I’m glad you’re still here and now we are going to look at some topics that many of you hold near and dear to your heart. Whenever we look at diversity in society, we will come across some diverse political topics. I will warn you right now, I do not care about political correctness. That does not mean I’m going to be careless with your feelings, but I am more concerned with political and moral clarity.

There is no more divisive topic in the political arena than the topic we’re about to tackle. This topic is so divisive that no matter how much the two major political parties become bipartisan, this topic always causes a huge social and moral chasm. That’s right; it’s time to talk about abortion.

1 McDowell, Josh and Hostetler, Bob. Right From Wrong. Dallas: Word Publishing. 1994. 17

2 Ibid. 15.

3 The Barna Update, February 12, 2002, The Barna Group of Ventura, California, www.barna.org

4 Ibid.

5 O’Reilly, Bill. Reaching Critical Mass. World Net Daily dated July 11, 2002. Accessed June 14, 2006.

6 Lopez, Katherine Jean. Silent Night, Secular Night: Is Christmas verboten? Q & A with John Gibson. National Review Online, dated October 27, 2005. From website: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gibson200510270839.asp

7 Colson, Charles and Pearcy, Nancy. How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1999. 360

8 Bullough, Vern L. and Bullough, Bonnie. Is There A Moral Decay? From website: http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol9/bullough-bullough9.pdf

CHAPTER 4

Opposition to Abortion

Before we begin with this emotional subject, I want to say that if any reader has had an abortion or has a loved one who had the procedure, I do not condemn you. I want you to know that, although evangelicals sometimes struggle with demonstrating love in the proper biblical manner, we are called to love and it is with Christlike love that I approach this subject. Please know that my hope is that anyone involved in this most sensitive issue will see that healing and forgiveness are available through Jesus Christ. There are some wonderful organizations skilled in this ministry listed at the end of this chapter. Please avail yourself of them.

What is the best approach when talking about abortion? Most avoid it at all costs, it is in the politics/religion category of issues not to talk about. But since this is a book about politics and religion, the best approach for the abortion subject is looking at what the Bible says, the available facts about abortion, and removing all political correctness. Again, this does not mean being insensitive, but moral and political clarity is the final desired outcome. I will begin with abortion opponents.

NOT PRO-LIFE

The original term used by evangelicals was “anti-abortion,” but this term had negative connotations, so we changed the term for the more positive term “pro-life” or “right to life.” Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, co-authors of Abortion: Questions & Answers, instruct their readers:

We became “right-to-life.” This is the best title. Use it always. We also have said we are “pro-life.” This, too, is an excellent title. But many people have used “pro-life” in other ways, changing its original meaning in many minds in an attempt to include those who labor against poverty, against war, against capital punishment, and against nuclear arms. Pro-abortionists have also, at times, claimed to be “pro-life.” They have never and will never however, adopt the title “Right to Life.” Let’s be positive. We are for protection for the unborn, the mother, the handicapped, and the aged. If possible, don’t accept the negative label “anti-abortion.” There is nothing negative about being for life. And their label? “Pro-abortion” is acceptable; “anti-life” is best. Never use their “pro-choice.” If you do, add “to kill” at the end of the phrase. 1

This literally breaks my heart. While I agree that this is a “right to life” issue for the unborn child, this approach is “us against them.” If it is fair to use the negative “pro-abortion” label for proponents of abortion, then it is also fair to use the negative “anti-abortion” label for opponents of abortion. This issue does not need to be wrapped up with other right to life issues, each one needs to be addressed by itself; they are all that important!

The issue is abortion. Both sides need to understand that and address it directly. Although I realize many abortion proponents place less value on the life of the unborn than the mother, I do not for one minute believe that most are “anti-life.” I am not willing to allow proponents off the hook; they are pro-abortion. But I will not avoid the negative label of “anti-abortion.” You are either for or against abortion. I understand that abortion is the catalyst for what has become a “culture of death” in America, but I want us to tackle this issue singularly. If we will do this, I believe moral and political clarity will rule the day.

ABORTION IS MURDER

That may seem insensitive on my part, but I said clarity is the final desired outcome and we can no longer allow anyone to pretend this procedure is anything other than the taking of an innocent life. Why this approach? Because when it is understood that abortion is murder, the great majority of Americans will come to grips with the fact that we do not have the luxury of masking this subject in political correctness. I am against abortion because it is murder. That is a baby living inside the womb, not the sterile medical term “fetus.” It has life, life given by Almighty God Himself.

Psalm 127:3 says, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward.” Anyone who does not believe that life is from God needs to ask the young couple that desperately wants a child and finally receives one. Evangelical and secular alike, many of these couples cry out to God for a baby. Why? Because in their hearts they know it is God who gives life. God Himself tells us this through His prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet of the nations” (Jer. 1:5). God had a plan for Jeremiah’s life before he was born, just as He has a plan for everyone, born and unborn.

God’s Word teaches that the unborn child is fully human, even if not fully developed. The unborn child is fully human because God by His hand made each individual and He has planned all of our days.

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, my being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.

Psalm 139:13-16

We can see clearly through God’s Word that the child inside the womb is a human being and to take that innocent life is indeed murder. Abortion is evil in the eyes of God and this nation has tried to mask this evil by desensitizing the issue and describing it as reproductive rights. God abhors that thought pattern:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

We need to shine the light of the truth onto this dark pall that has fallen over our country. And we need to start with the term “fetus.”

MORE THAN A FETUS

If you are an abortion proponent, please allow me to get personal with you for a bit. My good friend Greg Allen, who hosts the talk radio show The Right Balance, addresses the abortion issue this way. He says, “This is one fetus who is glad his mother decided to keep him.”

Why is the term fetus used? It all goes back to the landmark US Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade (1973). This whole argument was based off of the choice of the mother and her “right to privacy.” Again quoting Colson and Pearcy from How Now Shall We Live:

Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion, acknowledged at the time that if a fetus were a person, then its right to life would be guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment (which instructs the states that they may not deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property”). In order to uphold the right to abortion, the Court had to argue that though the fetus is biologically human, it is not a legal person. What’s more, if the justices acknowledged that the fetus changed from a nonperson to a person at any stage of pregnancy, then abortion would become an unlawful deprivation of life—in short, murder. The Court ruled that the fetus is a nonperson with no rights at all at any stage of pregnancy. Only the mother is a person, with a “right to privacy.”2

How many of you knew that about Roe v. Wade? How many of you knew that the Supreme Court of the United States put itself higher than the Supreme Being and declared the unborn child not a legal person? This is why the pro-abortion crowd clings to the term “fetus?”

Now the personal part. For those of you who support abortion and have children, I’d like you to reminisce for a moment to the day you learned you were pregnant. When you got the news, did you excitedly call your husband, mother, father, sister, brother, friend, whomever, and blurt out, “I’m going to have a fetus!”

How about the first time you had a sonogram and had a picture made? Did you go around showing everyone you knew, saying, “Look at the sonogram picture of my fetus?” At what point did this fetus change to a baby in your mind? Now do you see why abortion proponents cling to the term fetus? Because as long as they can keep America’s mind numb to the fact that a fetus is indeed a child, they can continue to have legal abortions. That is why they desperately fight any Supreme Court nominee that is anti-abortion. The day the Court recognizes the unborn child for what it is, the abortion goldmine is over. One of the strongest advocates of abortion is Planned Parenthood.

BIG BUSINESS

It is time to expose Planned Parenthood for who they really are; a business. Take a look at the following figures:

- Planned Parenthood (PP), supposedly a non-profit organization, made a profit of $63 million in 2004.

- Planned Parenthood has net assets of more than $784 million. All that money is drawing interest and making more profit for Planned Parenthood.

- While depicting itself as a benign health service for women, Planned Parenthood conducted 20 percent of the nation’s abortions –– over 255,000 abortions in 2004 (up 4.3 percent from 2003). While claiming to be pro-adoption, Planned Parenthood referred only slightly more than 1,400 customers to adoption agencies (down 20 percent from 2003).

- Nearly one third ($272.7 million) of Planned Parenthood’s income comes from taxpayers. That’s four times the amount given to abstinence programs.

- Planned Parenthood sold nearly one million (up over 21 percent over 2004) “emergency” birth control kits in 2004 (these include the morning after pill –– Plan B).3

I wonder how many Americans actually think Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization? Also, how many of you realize that 272.7 million taxpayer dollars were given to Planned Parenthood, “four times the amount given to abstinence programs?” Here is my clarion call to all evangelicals and abortion opponents regardless of political affiliation; I want the faucet of government dollars to Planned Parenthood shut off immediately. Your tax dollars are subsidizing an abortion factory, plain and simple. It needs to stop!

I can already hear Planned Parenthood screaming about meeting women’s health care needs, reproductive health as they like to call it. But did you know that the same reproductive health care offered at Planned Parenthood can also be had at crisis pregnancy centers, where alternatives to abortion are offered. There are three times as many of these centers as there are Planned Parenthood centers?4

Planned Parenthood is very proud of what it describes as “medically accurate sexuality education efforts,” and they provide these efforts because of “the ‘abstinence-only’ approach that ignores the realities of premarital sexual behavior in the U.S.” You see we evangelicals that believe in “abstinence only” are ignoring reality. Let’s take a look at the type of “medically accurate sexuality education” Planned Parenthood provides.

On their website for teens, Teen Wire, all types of wonderful information is available. What if you want to let someone know you are interested in him or her? No problem, just flirt with the person is what an In Focus e-magazine article instructs:

When it comes to letting someone know you’re interested, flirting is the way to go. But with so much how-to advice out there, it can be hard to know which flirting techniques work and which fall flat. Here are a few that are worth the effort and others that are worth tossing.5

The article continues giving advice on “being you,” what “pickup lines” work and which ones don’t, how to “act interested,” not using “put downs” like you did when you were younger, how to “check yourself” when flirting, and advice about “getting too close.” One interesting piece of information I found in the section of “Check Yourself” is:

If you’re flirting with someone of the same sex, and you’re not both out — or you’re around people who are homophobic — it may be even more important to try to make a connection when no one else is around. Sometimes people get accidentally “outed,” which can make for an uncomfortable, or even dangerous, situation.6

Talk about helpful and medically accurate sexual education! Planned Parenthood forgot to include “culturally relevant” in their self-applauding description. I mean this is important stuff; being sure you don’t accidentally “out” someone you’re interested in having a homosexual relationship with! Are you awake yet Christian?

Oh, and if you’re not sure as a teen if you’re gay or not, just read an article dated October 21, 2005 written by someone who obviously can offer medically accurate advice,

17-year old Ayana Stewart. How do I know she is capable of offering this much needed advice? It is because she is told by many that she is “open-minded.” Miss Stewart ponders the important question, “how does sexual experimentation influence our identity as straight, lesbian, or bisexual?” This is a seventeen year old girl!

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND ABSTINENCE

If you ever doubted that Planned Parenthood opposes the evangelical community and any type of abstinence-only training, then a simple look at their discussion of abstinence only on their website should clear up any doubt:

Abstinence-only education is one of the religious right’s greatest challenges to the nation’s sexual health. But it is only one tactic in a broader, longer-term strategy. Since the early 1980s, the ‘family “values” movement has won the collaboration of governments and public institutions, from Congress to local school boards, in abridging students’ constitutional rights. Schools now block student access to sexual health infor mation in class, at the school library, and through the public library’s Internet portals. They violate students’ “free speech” rights by censoring student publications of articles referring to sexuality. Abstinence-only programs often promote alarmist misinformation about sexual health and force-feed students religious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and contraception. In doing so, they endanger students’ sexual health.7

Did you catch that? We evangelicals are a “challenge[s] to the nation’s sexual health!” You see if you abstain from sex, you will not get pregnant and need an abortion, you will not catch a sexually transmitted disease, you will not suffer the guilt that comes from having sex outside of God’s design. What is so amazing about the above statement is that Planned Parenthood acknowledges that “abstaining from sexual inter course is the most effective method of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.”8

Not only that, we of the “religious right” are violating “students’ free speech rights by censoring student publications of articles of sexuality.” Worse than that, it is our “reli gious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and contraception” that is endangering “students’ sexual health.” Evangelicals are the enemy when it comes to sexual health. Why do they think that about us? Because we don’t care about real people:

The anti-abortion movement is increasingly hostile to the actual concerns of real people. They fail to acknowledge that lives are being ruined every day. Not by legal abortion, but by lack of education and access to contraception, by the lack of more effective, safer contraceptives, by men who refuse to share responsibility, and by society’s inattention to the fundamental needs of our young people. Reversing this situation would prevent unintended pregnancies by the hundreds of thousands.9

To hear Planned Parenthood, legal abortion does not ruin a life, oh yeah, that’s because a fetus is not a legal human.

JUST THE FACTS

According to Planned Parenthood, the antidote to abortion is more sex education and free access to contraception. But how is Planned Parenthood’s campaign going so far? According to a Guttmacher Institute article dated May 4, 2006, contraception still has a way to go:

Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use. Forty-six percent of women having abortions did not use a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% perceived themselves to be at low risk, 32% had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had unexpected sex and 1% were forced to have sex. Eight percent of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated. About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who did not use contraceptives in the month they became pregnant. Most of these women had practiced contraception in the past.10

Immediately, Planned Parenthood is going to say that improper contraceptive use is the problem. It may be part of the problem, but the numbers above show that it is not the answer to eliminating abortion. More than 13% of women who correctly use contraceptives still ended up with an unwanted pregnancy, almost the same amount of women who did not use any contraception. And although actual abstinence causes zero unwanted pregnancy meaning zero abortions, Planned Parenthood warns against the abstinence-only program. So if you’re looking for a sure-fire way to avoid an abortion, abstinence is not the way, according to Planned Parenthood. They would have you believe that a woman is better off taking a 86-87% chance using contraception.

WHAT TO DO

What should an evangelical do about the abortion issue? First determine exactly what you believe is truth with regard to the abortion question. Do you believe that it is morally wrong? Also, what do you think about people who perform or support abortion? We must be sure that we approach people who are pro-abortion with great love.

My own heart had to be changed. I was meditating on the abortion issue after reading Scripture, and I had a mental image of these people standing before God defending themselves for their support of abortion. I cannot imagine having to do that and we should do all we can to help people see the wrath that awaits them.

What every evangelical needs to do is to become person ally involved. You’ve began the first step: educating yourself. Also, you can volunteer to work in abortion intervention and pregnancy crisis centers.

We must lobby our public officials, at both the state and federal level. We need to write them, Planned Parenthood, and all other abortion rights groups. Write your local news papers, call your local radio and television stations.

Now here is the big part, and I am really addressing the nearly 7 million evangelicals who did not vote in 2004. We need to vote only for candidates who are anti-abortion. Any other candidate is automatically disqualified.

Time is indeed a valuable resource you provide to the cause, but financial support is equally important. There are many outstanding religious and nonreligious programs that need your financial support. Supporting your local preg nancy crisis center is a great way to make a difference in your community.

Most importantly, pray. Pray as though life depends on it…because it does. Pray for God to intervene in the lives of these women and of the abortion providers. Pray for our elected officials to make the right decisions. We also need to pray for the nine justices of the US Supreme Court because one day the abortion issue will come up again, and we need God to open the eyes of all the justices to recognize that the unborn child is a legal human being.

Finally, to those women who have had an abortion or if you support abortion, I have a special prayer for all of you. My prayer is that you will seek the biblical truth about this issue. I pray that you will seek forgiveness and restoration through Jesus Christ. May God bless all of you.

Helpful Resources

Hotlines that Refer to Places for Help

Option Line: 1-800-395-HELP24 hour phone help routed to a help center in your area. Confidential. You can also email at: answers@ optionline.org

Catholic Charities: 1-800-CARE-002

The National Crisis Pregnancy Helpline 1-800-521-5530 (24 Hour) The Nurturing Network: 1-800-TNN-4MOM (M-F, 9-5)

Counseling

Bethany Christian Services: 1-800-BETHANY (8am-12pm EST, 7 days/week)

Several Sources Foundation: 1-800-662-2678 (Early to Late)

24-Hour Pregnancy Hotlines

National Life Center 1-800-848-LOVE Birthright: 1-800-550-4900

Adoption Information

Bethany Christian Services: 1-800-BETHANY (8am-12pm EST, 7 days/week)

International Hotlines

Birthright International 1-800-550-4900 (24 Hour) National Life Center 1-800-848-LOVE (24 Hour)

1 Willke, Dr. and Mr. J.C. Why Can’t We Love Them Both: Words Mean Everything. From website: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_38.asp

2 Colson, Charles and Pearcy, Nancy. How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. 1999. 118.

3 Christian Newswire. Planned Parenthood’s $63 Million in Profit from Abortion. From website: http:// www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_13106.shtml

4 National Federation of Republican Assemblies. Planned Parenthood Has Profitable Year. From website: http://www.gopwing.com/modules.php?sid=626

5 Reece, Tameika. Flirting: What Works, What Doesn’t. March 3, 2006. From website: http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2006/if-20060321p425-flirting.php

6 Ibid

7 Planned Parenthood. Abstinence-Only “Sex” Education. From website: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/teensexual-health/fact-abstinence-education.xml

8 Planned Parenthood. Education and Social Marketing Group. From website: http://www.plannedparent-hood.org/pp2/portal/educationoutreach/sexualityeducation/

9 Planned Parenthood. Five Ways to Prevent Abortion (And One Way That Won’t). From website: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-bortion-prevent.xml

10 Guttmacher Institute. Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States. May 4, 2006. From website: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

CHAPTER 5

No Same-Sex Marriage

Let’s go ahead and address the intolerance issue first. I am not intolerant of homosexuals. I am, however, intolerant

of homosexuality, just as I am intolerant of adultery, fornication (sex outside of marriage), stealing, lying, cheating, murder, rape, incest, abuse of any kind, and all other sins outlined in the Bible. I am intolerant of all sins because Jesus taught, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains” (John 9:41). This means I know the difference between right and wrong and do not have the luxury to act otherwise. I must be intolerant to sin.

This does not mean I stand in judgment of anyone. Many nonbelievers’ favorite Bible verse is Matthew 7:1 where Jesus teaches, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” What exactly is Jesus talking about? First of all, if God has declared something sin, speaking out against sin is not being judgmental. If, however, we begin comparing ourselves to another, considering ourself better than the other person, then yes, we are being judgmental. I stand in judgment of no one; I do stand on the Word of God. Homosexuality is a sin.

Now the next label that may come up is that I am homophobic. Dictionary.com defines homophobia as “fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men” and a homophobic is someone who is “prejudiced against homosexual people.” I do not fear nor do I have contempt for any homosexual; I have only Christlike love for that person. I do not prejudge nor have I made any “adverse judgment or formed an opinion beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts” (definition of prejudice). I have thoroughly examined the facts and have based my judgment on both the truth of God’s word and secular research (as you’ll read later). I am not intolerant of homosexuals nor am I a homophobe.

Having established my position on homosexuality, I want to turn our attention to the issue of same-sex marriage.

GOD’S PLAN FOR MARRIAGE

Same-sex marriage is an attack on traditional marriage and I realize that proponents of same-sex marriage have a hard time understanding this. They will tell you that marriage is a “personal commitment between two people and it is really no one else’s business.” Supporters of samesex marriage claim that society has no right to “be dictating what two people can or can’t do when no one else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that’s their right, but it isn’t their right to stop it.” They also claim discrimination, stating “denying marriage to a homosexual couple is no different than denying marriage to Hispanic or black couples.”1

First and foremost, marriage is not merely “a personal commitment between two people.” To believe this would be to believe that man established the tradition of marriage. The Bible teaches otherwise. Genesis 2:24 claims, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” One thing that is often forgotten about this verse is that God is not only the One stating this; He is doing so with the first couple, before there were any earthly fathers and mothers. Adam and Eve had yet to become the first parents! Clearly, the Bible teaches that it is God who ordained marriage.

Why did God establish marriage and the family? First, Genesis 1:27 states that God created both male and female in His own image. God brought man and woman together into a marital relationship for oneness, unity, and joy. The Billy Graham Training Center Bible speaks about marriage:

Because marriage and family have been established by God, consider His plan and purposes for this relationship:

- Marriage involves the exclusive commitment of a man and woman to each other for life (Gen. 2:24; Matthew 19:5-9)

- Marriage is to be a source of mutual love and respect (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).

- Children are a blessing resulting from the marriage relationship (Psalm 127:3-5).

- The family is to be a source of instruction about God and righteous living (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

- The home is to be established on a spiritual foundation built by God (Psalm 127:1).2

Proponents of same-sex marriage can only fulfill one of the five above purposes of marriage, “a source of mutual love and respect.” A homosexual couple cannot obviously fulfill the “exclusive commitment of a man and woman.” A homosexual couple cannot produce children, thus receiving “a blessing from the marriage relationship.” Furthermore, a homosexual couple is going to have a difficult time being “a source of instruction about God and righteous living” to any family. Lastly, a homosexual couple will never have a home that is “established on a spiritual foundation by God.”

IS IT DISCRIMINATION?

There are some very compelling arguments offered by the gay community on why the ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory. One such author is Scott Bidstrup, a “freelance writer and political activist who has been active in human rights issues and in the gay rights movement.”3

Mr. Bidstrup writes that the civil rights issue is “referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.” He goes on to list how homosexual couples are often denied by the biological family to see their partner in the hospital, to make medical decisions for their partner, denied access to funerals and burial sites, and coerced into testifying against their partner in a courtroom, unlike a heterosexual couple. He asks, “Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?”4

Mr. Bidstrup is totally off base with his analysis because it is based solely on emotion. He and other proponents of gay marriage know that the path to legalizing homosexuality is paved by emotional arguments.

First of all, discrimination is not always wrong. Society has a right to determine whether or not an action or a right benefits society. Mr. Bidstrup addresses this issue by saying gay couples “make valuable contributions to their communities.” I do not doubt that many gay couples make contributions to society, but that is not the issue here. A single person, gay or straight, can make and do make valuable contributions to their communities. The point is whether or not this action benefits society.

In a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, whose laws are fashioned after the Ten Commandments, whose constitution is a by-product of religious covenants established by the colonies, we began as a country that respected not only our Creator but also His holy word (More on that in chapter 10). The moral health of this country, as was outlined in chapter 3, is being destroyed daily because of moral relativism and the arguments for same-sex marriage are grounded in moral relativism.

Homosexuals have the same basic rights as any American. The problem here is that homosexuals want special rights. They are daily advocating for special rights and protections that the average non-homosexual doesn’t have. It is not just a stretch to align homosexuals with other racial and ethnic minorities, but the very groups with which homosexuals are trying to align themselves have repudiated this analogy.

African-American clergy have led the way for the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Michael McManus, writing for Virtue Online reports:

- Interestingly, the [African-American] denominations which have led the battle for the Marriage Amendment are African-America the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Church of God in Christ. Two years later Catholic Bishops joined the cause.

- “It is inaccurate to say gays are discriminated against,” argues Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., an African-American who’s Hope Christian Church recently hosted a Marriage Summit in support of the amendment. “It is a manipulative ploy to work on the sympathy of the nation.”

- “I think they are attempting to ride on the coattails of the most successful Civil Rights Movement in American history led by the Rev. Martin Luther King. It is a way to ennoble their struggle. It is not accurate at all to say they are discriminated against. I believe the gay lifestyle is at some level a choice. People do not know you are gay, unless you tell them. That is unlike being an AfricanAmerican, which you cannot hide. Your skin pigment is dark or it is not.”5

What might be surprising to some, the African-American community has stronger views against homosexual marriage than do whites. Peter Beinart, writing for the New Republic Online reports:

A December 2003 New York Times survey found that 75 percent of blacks oppose same-sex marriage, compared with 59 percent of whites. Fifty-eight percent of blacks think sexual orientation “can be changed,” according to a November Pew Research Center study, versus 39 percent of whites. And, according to Pew, 60 percent of blacks hold an unfavorable view of gay men, compared with only 50 percent of whites.6

Hispanic leaders are also voicing their support to a number of evangelical positions, including opposition to same-sex marriage. In a Christianity Today article dated November 22, 2004, Adelle Banks reports:

Yuri Mantilla, director of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family’s Hispanic Voter Education Project, said the same diversity reflected in the campaign against gay marriage is needed to address issues such as embryonic stem cell research and judicial nominations.

“The future of these movements has to be diverse—Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American, all united,” he said. “That’s essential.”

The Rev. Daniel de Leon, pastor of Templo Calvario in Santa Ana, Calif., one of the largest Hispanic evangelical churches in the country, said he and other Hispanic leaders are considering forming a separate bipartisan network to influence Capitol Hill with stances opposing abortion, supporting the traditional family, and selecting judges who will uphold such positions.

De Leon attended a May press conference in which a multicultural group of religious leaders announced a poll showing the majority of Americans supported a federal marriage amendment.7

Clearly the gay community is having a difficult time framing this into a civil rights issue. How about the genetic issue?

IT’S ONLY NATURAL

Another argument for same-sex marriage is that homosexuals are born gay, some have even attributed their sexuality to a “gay gene.” This is known as the “essentialist argument.” This argument continues to find very little support in the scientific community.

In his article, Homosexuality: The Essentialist Argument

Continues to Erode, Dr. A. Dean Byrd, of the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality, writes:

Dr. Kenneth Zucker, in his careful analysis of the innate/immutable argument of homosexuality, rostered a plethora of studies to support his conclusion that “sexual orientation is more fluid than fixed.” 8

Friedman and Downey, the psychiatric researchers at Columbia University, offered a strongly worded conclusion opposing the essentialist argument: “At clinical conferences one often hears...that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true...The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.”9

This information seems to be left out of the public debate about the nature of homosexuality, at least within the Beltway of Washington D.C. Evangelicals should take the position of Dr. Byrd in recommending that legislators “call into question the ‘science’ of the national organizations, particularly when the national organizations employ activism disguised as science to justify resolutions and policy statements.”

What if the “science” is true and homosexuals are “born” gay? Does this excuse the behavior? Biblically, no. As is the case with all of fallen mankind, the particulars of the sinful tendency are irrelevant. The sin can be homosexuality, substance abuse, immorality, lying, or pride, or a thousand others. The important realization here is that we are all still responsible for controlling it. Our natural tendencies are indeed sinful and it is through the grace of Jesus Christ that we can all be delivered. The Apostle Paul encourages us in

writing “such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

I know that many in the gay community dismiss the idea of being “rescued,” but as any Christian who has left a sinful lifestyle can attest, being delivered from what once seemed hopelessness can become a reality regardless of the sin. The only cure for sin, regardless of the behavior, is through a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ, a relationship that is on-going. This doesn’t mean the temptations or tendency will be completely erased, sin never is while on earth. However, restoration is always possible through repentance and forgiveness.

As evangelicals stand in the gap for God’s Word and oppose same-sex marriage, let us do so with a Christlike love. We cannot attack homosexuals, nor can we display hatred and vitriol to the gay community, like the type displayed by the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. Let me be perfectly clear…

GOD DOES NOT HATE FAGS!

Please forgive the use of the derogatory term “fags,” but it is in response to the most blatant display of hatred towards the homosexual community. The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Topeka, Kansas, lead by Mr. Fred Phelps, demonstrates perhaps the most disgraceful abuse of the name of Jesus ever recorded in history. This “Christian” organization has a website titled, “God Hates Fags.” Their own website boastfully states:

WBC engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, GOD IS NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, FAGS DOOM NATIONS, etc.10

I’m sure homosexuals will receive no relief knowing this, but the WBC attacks are not just restricted to them, but also anyone else who “support” the homosexual lifestyle. Who are some of these people and institutions?

First, Billy Graham is worthy of Mr. Phelps’ disdain and is accused of being a false prophet. Not only that, but the Reverend Graham is worthy of a “BILLY IS A LYING WHORE” sign in the eyes of “Friendly Fred.” And how did these “loving” Christians address attendees of the Billy Graham Crusade in New York City in June 2005? Here is a sampling of what is described as “sentiments to be heard at any given time from any of the 8 Tachmonites” (alluding to one of King David’s chief captains found in 2 Sam. 23:8):

Billy Graham is a false prophet who is teaching that which he ought not for filthy lucre’s sake. He will prophesy unto you smooth things . . . whatever will salve your filthy conscience, so that he can get butts in the seats, and so you will put a dollar in the box!

Billy Graham is nothing more than a pimp, who runs a bigger whorehouse than Heidi Fleiss ever dreamed of! You pay him money to make you feel good . . . you’re nothing more than his johns!

God hates fags; God hates fag enablers; ergo God hates Billy Graham: therefore, anyone pandering to, and financing him is going to split hell wide open with him!11

Somehow, Mr. Phelps is convinced that he is going to heaven and Billy Graham and his supporters are going to hell. I’ll take my chances with Billy Graham.

If you happen to love your country and choose to enter the military to serve, you too will suffer the wrath of “Fiery Fred.” His description about soldiers that die in combat is:

These turkeys are not heroes. They are lazy, incompetent idiots looking for jobs because they’re not qualified for honest work.

They were raised on a steady diet of fag propaganda in the home, on TV, in church, in school, in mass media everywhere the two-pronged lie:

1) It’s OK to be gay; and, 2) Anyone saying other wise, like WBC, is a hatemonger who must be vilified, demonized, marginalized into silence.

Therefore, with full knowledge of what they were doing, they voluntarily joined a fag-infested army to fight for a fag-run country now utterly and finally forsaken by God who Himself is fighting against that country.12

I take this very personal. Not only did I serve in the Army for 22 years, but also my son is currently serving in the Army and saw combat for one year in Ramadi, Iraq where he lost brothers in arms. What do these brave heroes receive from Pastor Phelps and his lost flock? Nothing less than a picket line at their funerals!

I’ve already given more space than this “pastor” and “church” deserve, but I want to assure anyone desiring to understand evangelicals that the Westboro Baptist Church does not represent evangelicals, biblical truth, or Christianity. I hope this is clear to everyone.

Even though Mr. Phelps denies the clear teaching of the Bible, Jesus does love all people, to include homosexuals. It is true that God hates sin, but He does not hate sinners nor is He “willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Cor. 3:9).

Jesus died for all sins, for all people, for all times. He did so because “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God would not send His only Son as a Savior for a “select” few. Forgiveness of sins is available to all who “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

HOPE FOR HEALING

Evangelicals must stand on God’s word and not accept same-sex marriage, regardless of the peer pressure and ridicule we receive for such a stance. We must also, unlike Mr. Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, show love and compassion to the homosexual community. It is through our steadfastness and love that this issue will be resolved in a way pleasing to God.

To the homosexual who has been hurt by the “church,” as only one evangelical, I extend my hand of love to you. If you are seeking help and would like to learn more, please avail yourself of the helpful resources below.

HELPFUL RESOURCES

Pure Life Ministries. Pure Life Ministries exists to serve Christian individuals and organizations dealing with sexual sin throughout the world by providing biblically based counseling, teaching materials and a public speaking ministry with the goal of leading Christians to victory over sexual sin and a deeper life in God. (http://www.purelifeministries. org/ )

Exodus International. Exodus is the largest Christian referral and information network dealing with homosexual issues in the world. (http://www.exodus.to/)

Homosexuals Anonymous. Homosexuals Anonymous, a Christian fellowship, holds the view that homosexual activity is not in harmony with the will of God and that the universal creation norm is heterosexuality. (http://www.ha-fs.org/Home)

Stephen Bennett Ministries. Stephen Bennett is a Christian recording artist, speaker and evangelist. His music can be heard nationally on Christian radio and he is emerging as one of the nation’s key speakers on ‘coming out’ of homosexuality and the homosexual agenda. (http://www.sbministries.org/)

1 Balanced Politics. Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized? From website: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm

2 The Billy Graham Training Center. The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 3.

3 Bidstrup, Scott. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. From website: http://www.bidstrup.com

4 Ibid.

5 McManus, Michael. Why Black Clergy Oppose Same-Sex Marriage. Posted by David Virtue on May 10, 2006. From website: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4014

6 Beinart, Peter. Wedded. Posted on the New Republic Online March 25, 2004. From website: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040405&s=trb040504

7 Banks, Adelle M. Racially Diverse Faith Coalitions Oppose Gay Marriage, Tackle Other Issues. Christianity Today, November 22, 2004 issue. From website: http://www.christianitytoday.com

8 Murray, B. (2000). “Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren’t exclusively heterosexual.” Monitor on Psychology, 32(3), pp. 64-67., quoted in Dr. A. Dean Byrd, “Homosexuality: The Essentialist Argument Continues to Erode.” National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality. From website: http://www.narth.com/docs/essentialist.html

9 Zucker, K. J. (2003). “The politics and science of repar ative therapy.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, pp. 399-400. quoted in Dr.A. Dean Byrd, “Homosexuality: The Essentialist Argument Continues to Erode.” National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality. From website: http://www.narth. com/docs/essentialist.html

10 From website: http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/aboutwbc.html

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

CHAPTER 6

Education

Public education is another area that evangelicals express concern. In the last 40 years, only two generations, the public education system has been radically changed. The core values of our country, values based on morality, are rarely taught in public school. A secular, atheistic, and liberal approach to education has been and is being vigor ously pursued. It is time for evangelicals to become more involved with our children’s education.

SCHOOL’S OUT

Remember the good old days of school where you actually had to be able to read, do elementary mathematics, have a reasonable amount of knowledge of American history, learn civics (how to be a citizen), and know basic geography? No? Then you or your child probably attends a public school that is more concerned with teaching “tolerance” than the ABC’s.

So what is tolerance? In the educational system it means “the embracing and celebration of the opinions, practices, and behaviors of others.” You may be thinking, that doesn’t sound so bad, what’s wrong with tolerating other “opinions, practices, and behaviors?” There is nothing wrong with this except that Christianity and anything resembling absolute morality is becoming less tolerated in public education.

In the name of tolerance, California State Senate Bill 1437 is being pushed and it would require the teaching and endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle. Mona Passignano, writing on the Focus on the Family Action website, reports:

If signed into law, it would force all public school teachers to present to students a one-sided message about homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender issues. The bill would ban lessons, discussions and activities that reflect adversely upon one’s sexual orientation, which would end any open discussion about the issue of homosexuality in public classrooms and effectively silence the Christian voice on the issue. To compound this bias, the bill calls for all facets of education to be stripped of any non-endorsing messages about homosexuality.

According to the California Family Council, “homosexuality would be presented as a positive, accepted norm without any of the moral or health concerns expressed by many parents and faith groups. Stereotypical gender and traditional family roles would no longer be discussed in public schools, and everything – except the Christian viewpoint – would be protected under the guise of tolerance.”1

So how is this bill being promoted to insure homosexuality is “presented as a positive, accepted norm?” The bill states “This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions to include race or ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, and religion” (italics added).2

The original bill prohibited “the State Board of Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.”3

With the clever stroke of a pen, the California Senate is working to insure that Golden State children are indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. So how is this going to affect Christian children who attend worship services and Bible studies on Sunday? Christian children are taught that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, but when they get to school on Monday, their teacher will teach them otherwise.

How does a parent counter this assault on our children’s education? First, get involved by volunteering at your child’s school and knowing what curriculum is used to teach him or her. Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link reminds parents:

It’s critically important today that parents be a part of public education in their community, especially if their children are attending a local public school. It’s still true today that some of our greatest citizens are serving our children in public schools. But it is equally true that the future of parent-directed public education hangs in the balance.4

It is absolutely true that “some of our greatest citizens are serving our children in public schools!” My daughter Tiffany is a 2nd grade teacher and I know how dedicated she is as both a professional and a Christian to providing the best possible education for all her students. This dedication from our teachers coupled with the involvement of parents is the only way to counter the liberal agenda of a teacher’s union like the National Education Association (NEA).

THE 411 ON THE NEA

The National Education Association has been on the vanguard of fighting anything that resembles local control of education, greater parental involvement, and higher standards for students and teachers.

When it comes to local control of education, the NEA is involving itself in curriculum development through an organization known as the Teacher Union Reform Network (TURN). Just take a look at TURN’s mission statement:

We affirm the union’s responsibility to collaborate with other stakeholders in public education and to seek consistently higher levels of student achievement by:

- Improving continuously the quality of teaching.

- Promoting in public education and in the union democratic dynamics, fairness, and due process for all.

- Seeking to expand the scope of collective bargaining to include instructional and professional issues.

- Improving on an ongoing basis the terms and conditions under which both adults and children work and learn. 5

Now that might sound like a noble cause, but what this actually translates into is a union now becoming involved in not only curricula decisions, but also hiring practices. These two areas are supposed to be decided by the local school boards, the very school boards that the public votes into office. This is the NEA’s way to counter greater parental involvement in areas where parents are not welcomed.

The NEA welcomes parental involvement when it comes to classroom help, which I strongly support. The NEA is also very much in sync with parents on pro-choice issues, as long as the choice does not include what school their children attend. John Dater writing for the Action Institute states:

The NEA opposes all efforts to increase parental choice in education including private schools. It has publicly stated its opposition to any form of home-schooling unless performed by state-certified teachers who use a state-approved curriculum.6

The NEA also aligns itself with parents when they oppose standardized testing. How does the NEA view accountability and testing?

Schools, teachers and students should all be held to high standards, and NEA believes that accountability should be shared by schools, education employees, policymakers and parents -with the ultimate goal of helping every student succeed. Taxpayers and parents have a right to know that their money is being spent appropriately and that schools are doing their job. However, expectations for student achievement must be in line with the investments that states and communities make in public education. Calls for raising student performance must be accompanied by additional resources for up-to-date text-books, quality teachers and smaller class sizes.7

(Emphasis added)

That “however” leaves the door open for the NEA to come up with every excuse as to why a school doesn’t meet the state standards. The NEA can always say the state and/or community does not invest enough money in their schools. Something tells me that the NEA doesn’t know the definition of “enough.”

What is the NEA approach to accountability? They are for standardized tests as part of the solution:

NEA believes that standardized testing should be only one component of accountability. A good accountability system uses multiple measures to determine progress:

- For teachers, evaluations are a more rigorous and thorough accountability system than standardized test scores.

- For students, assessment also should take into account classroom assignments, grades, scores on teacher-developed tests and other performance measures.

- For schools, assessments should take into account graduation rates, progress on standardized tests (as opposed to just raw test scores) and other measures.

- Standardized tests should be used to guide instruction by helping identify gaps in learning and groups of students who need the most help. But test scores alone should never be used to punish students, teachers or schools by cutting funding, closing schools or firing teachers.8

While I agree standardized tests are not the end-all answer to student performance, let’s not underestimate their value. Eric Anderson and Patsy Robertson, writing in the NEA Today, their flagship publication, stated in 1999:

Given the atmosphere of teacher and public education bashing that’s sweeping the nation, we must improve the teacher evaluation process. One way to do that would be to link teacher evaluations to student test scores. The purpose of teaching is to educate, and we should be held accountable for how well we do it. The public wants accountability from their public schools. I say we give it to them. Current teacher evaluation measures aren’t working and surely aren’t providing accountability. We’ve all heard the horror stories about poor teachers who get positive evaluations because the principal never sets foot in the classroom to see what’s really going on.

Some principals don’t have the will to evaluate teachers poorly. Some principals don’t have time to evaluate teachers properly. And most principals’ evaluations based on one or two visits are subjective, consisting of little more than an administrator’s feelings about a teacher. Tying student test scores to teacher evaluations could help principals evaluate – or, as Webster says, ‘determine the value of’ – teachers by creating objective measures that could level the playing field for all teachers.9

In my own state, Florida, we have the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, notoriously known as FCAT. There has been much gnashing of teeth over this test and admittedly it has had its problems. The testing and evaluation of results is an on-going process.

My county, Santa Rosa, and the adjacent county, Okaloosa, perennially score high in all areas of the FCAT. Okaloosa County had the highest reading and math scores in 2005 and 2006 is the fourth consecutive year that Okaloosa has outpointed the rest of the state in either school grades or student achievement levels. Okaloosa County School Superintendent Don Gaetz comments:

“There are many more opportunities for us to improve in the future,” the Superintendent said, “but our steady gains year after year prove that higher standards mean better schools.” Gaetz attributed the continuously improving results to a fourth consecutive year of no social promotions and teachers and principals doing a better job of diagnosing learning problems and developing individualized plans for academic improvement. “More than ever before, teachers understand why some children are struggling and how other students have the potential to go further and faster than the rest of the class,” Gaetz said. “Every child benefits when we get away from teaching to the middle and instead concentrate on each child as an individual with his own needs and gifts.”10

The success of Okaloosa County is not only a result of teaching the “Sunshine State Standards” curriculum, which does not mean, “teaching the test,” but also because teachers are investing time in actual teaching. This is an encouraging development in light of how some teachers merely facilitate classes.

So what if you are not blessed enough to have a county school system the caliber of Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties? Wouldn’t it be nice to actually have a choice in where your child actually attends school? Homeschooling is becoming the choice of many evangelical homes.

HOMESCHOOLING

In 2002, Dr. Dobson said the following on his radio program:

In the state of California, if I had a child there, I wouldn’t put the youngster in a public school.... I think it’s time to get our kids out. And I’m going to get hit for [saying] that.11

That is sound advice for many evangelical parents. As I’ve stated, the schools where I live are quite good and I would be fairly comfortable with sending my children (if they were still school-aged) to our schools. This does not mean that I would let my guard down. My daughter Becky is attending Troy University and I am very pleased with the balanced education she is receiving. I am still very involved in her development and we talk constantly about what she is learning.

We’ve already seen that the NEA opposes homeschooling unless the state certifies parents and approve the curriculum used. Some choice! So homeschool parents, how does the NEA view you? Dave Arnold writing on the NEA condescendingly calls you “well-meaning amateurs” and “gullible parents.”

Why would some parents assume they know enough about every academic subject to homeschool their children? You would think that they might leave this -the shaping of their children’s minds, careers, and futures -to trained professionals. That is, to those who have worked steadily at their profession for 10, 20, 30 years! Teachers! There’s nothing like having the right person with the right experience, skills and tools to accomplish a specific task. Whether it is window-washing, bricklaying or designing a space station. Certain jobs are best left to the pros. Formal education is one of those jobs. The number of parents who could easily send their children to public school but opt for home-schooling instead is on the increase. Several organizations have popped up on the Web to serve these wannabe teachers.12

Now the NEA does add this disclaimer at the bottom of this article: “The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NEA or its affiliates.” How many readers believe the NEA doesn’t agree with the writer’s view?

By the way, is Mr. Arnold an actual educator? No, but he is a member of the Illinois Education Association. So if he is not an educator, what line of work is he in that qualifies him to comment on homeschooling? Mr. Arnold is the head custodian at Brownstown Elementary School in Southern Illinois.

I am by no means denigrating custodians, but I guess we can rely on Mr. Arnold’s closeness to the classroom to form his opinions. The next thing he’ll be telling us is that he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express! (That was a joke) It is apparent that the NEA holds him in high esteem; he’s been writing for their website bi-monthly since 2002.

Regardless of the hype perpetuated by the anti-homeschooling crowd, homeschoolers continue to outperform public school students. In 2002 and 2003, homeschoolers averaged a score of 22.5 on the American College Test (ACT) compared to the national average of 20.8. On the 2002

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), homeschoolers averaged a score of 1092, 72 points higher than the national average of 1020. In 2003, homeschoolers received 129 National Merit Scholarships as opposed to only 21 in 1995. That is a 500% increase! (Source: Home School Legal Defense Association13)

BE A WELL MEANING AMATEUR

Mr. Arnold may think he is dissuading parents from homeschooling, but I encourage you to attempt this if you feel it is necessary for your child. How is it before public education became mandatory in America that our children received instruction? From parents! You will discover, as have hundreds of thousands of parents, that you are indeed capable of instructing your children.

I’m sure you are concerned that your children’s initial education is key to their success and it is. Homeschoolers, grades 1-4 perform one grade level higher than their public and private school counterparts. By grade 8, the average homeschool student performs four grade levels above the national average. 14

There are many helpful resources to guide you along the way. Check with your church to see if there is a homeschooling network already established. One excellent website is You Can Homeschool (www.youcanhomeschool.org); it is a good place to start.

BE INVOLVED

Whatever educational path you decide to take, it is your responsibility to ensure the education your child or children are receiving is proper. Evangelicals that send their children off to school and do not monitor the curriculum their children receive are gambling with their young ones’ spiritual health. King Solomon knew the value of a good education, one with instruction and discipline:

Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

Proverbs 22:6

The Hebrew word for “train” is chanak, and it literally means to “initiate” or “dedicate,” and the implication is that we are to initiate the training of our children at the very beginnings of their intelligence development. We would not allow our children to grow up unattended in their first four years of life, nor can we do so from ages 5-18.

We not only need to be aware of the curriculum our children are receiving, but also who is setting that curriculum. If the NEA is having a say in determining what our children learn, there is great reason for concern.

Monitor your local school boards and state legislators; they have enormous power in the public education system. Hold them accountable and demand that your children receive the type of education that meets your approval. If they are unresponsive to you, begin a community organization that demands educational excellence. Those school board members and legislators answer to you, not the teachers’ unions.

Most importantly, pray for your children, their teachers and school administrators. I encourage you to pray over your children everyday before they head off to school. Many a Christian parent I know bemoans the fact that school prayer has been abolished, as do I. But whenever I ask those same parents if they pray with their children before they go to school, more than 75% say no. I ask them, “Why do you expect the government to do something you are not willing to do yourself?”

The ball is in our court; let’s not drop it!

1 Passignano, Mona. California Education Bill Would Mandate Schools Endorse Homosexuality. From website: http://www.focusaction.org/Articles/A000000190.cfm NOTE: At the time of this printing, the bill was still pending.

2 California Senate bill 1437 introduced by Senator Kuehl, February 22, 2006. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/ bill/sen/sb_14011450/sb_1437_bill_20060222_ introduced.pdf

3 Ibid.

4 Citizen Link – Focus on Social Issues. “Education– Public Education.” From website: http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/education/pe/

5 Teacher’s Reform Union Network of AFT & NEA Locals. Mission Statement. From website: htttp://www.turnexchange.net/about.html

6 Dater, John. America’s Public Schools: Crisis and Cure. Accessed from The Red Pub website on June 20, 2006. http://www.theredpub.com/education_public_school_crisis.php

7 National Education Association. Accountability and Testing. From website: http://www.nea.org/account-ability/index.html

8 Ibid.

9 Anderson, Eric and Robertson, Patsy. Debate: Should student test scores be used to eval- uate teachers? NEA Today, March 1999. From website: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3617/is_199903/ai_n8832828

10 Okaloosa County School District News. FCAT Is Good News For Okaloosa Students. From website: http://www.okaloosaschools.com/news/gen050517b.asp

11 Homeschool World. Dr. Dobson Tells Christians to Get Kids Out Of California Public Schools. From website: http://www.home-school.com/news/drdobson.html

http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv04022012 Arnold, Dave. Home Schools Run By Well-Meaning Amateurs: Schools With Good Teachers Are Best- Suited to Shape Young Minds. National Education Association Support Professionals link. From website:

13 Home School Legal Defense Association.

Homeschooling Maintains Academic Success. From website: http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200312/200312040.asp

14 You Can Homeschool. Introduction. From website: http://www.youcanhomeschool.org/starthere/default.asp

CHAPTER 7

Economics

You might be surprised to find a chapter on economics in a book about understanding evangelicals, but you will be more surprised to know that the Bible speaks extensively about this subject. Some will no doubt be shocked and possibly apoplectic to find that the Bible mandates free market capitalism. This is going to no doubt be a shock to socialists who believe the Bible teaches socialism. So what does the Bible say about economics?

ALL OF IT BELONGS TO GOD

All of the earth belongs to God. Psalm 24:1 teaches, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.” Did you catch that? All of the earth and its inhabitants belong to God! So my dear atheistic or agnostic friends, you still belong to God even if you deny Him.

When God sent the ten plagues onto Egypt, through His spokesman Moses, God was teaching Pharaoh every time He stopped a plague “that the earth is the Lord’s” (Exodus 9:29). In fact, all ten plagues were in response to the ten Egyptian gods to prove that only He, God, ruled the earth.

Why is this important to know in a chapter on economics? Because we have to understand that it is God who provides all we have. The quicker we understand this, the better we will be at sharing the blessings. That is an important lesson not only for children to learn, but also adults. The lesson is that because God is sovereign over the world, He owns everything.

Deists believe that God set the universe in motion and no longer interferes with it. Deists like to compare God with a watchmaker who makes the watch, winds the watch, and just lets it go. This denies God’s providence.

God not only created the world, but He also sustains it through Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul teaches:

For by Him all things we created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Colossians 1:16-17

Jesus is not only our Redeemer, but He is also our Sustainer. He maintains the earth as an integral system in harmony and as a whole. However, ownership has been subordinated to man.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

God gave authority to man to have dominion over all the earth, and with that authority, responsibility.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 1:28

Human culture celebrates God. Humanity is the expression of man’s bearing the image of God. God expects man to reproduce and to share in this “dominion.” Dominion does not mean we are to dominate earth’s resources in a wasteful manner. Evangelicals should be the best environmentalists.

Giving us dominion of the earth gives us the right to ownership. Although God did give humans dominion over the land, He did not do it without requiring us to work it. “Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Granted, God had to give land to Adam, but He did require man to work for it. The lesson here is that ownership of personal property comes from productivity, not entitlement. More on that later!

Personal property ownership is good for society because the landowner is going to use that property for his own selfinterest. If self-interest seems unbiblical, it is in the sense of selfishness, but it is self-interest that motivates man to work. How the land is going to be used is determined by the owner. So how is this good for society?

If the landowner decides to farm the land, that land will produce food, a commodity needed by all. If the landowner decides to build a house, the materials and labor needed to build that house will produce a need that is filled by society. If the landowner decides to start a business, that business will provide jobs to produce the product or service being sold. If the landowner decides to sell or rent the land, he or she will do so dependent upon the profit realized. This is free market economics in its simplest form.

Private property ownership is a social function. This is in contrast to the Ebenezer Scrooge caricature of capitalists, someone who cares only about profit and not the community. While this is true in some cases, that indicts the person, not the system. Private property ownership benefits society because smart stewardship, both God-honoring and investment-wise, dictates that the owner will use this land in a way that meets the needs and demands of the community.

This dynamic is clearly described in Gary North’s book Inherit the Earth:

Legally, the Bible allows great freedom of private property management, but from an economic point of view, every decision (or lack of decision) on the part of the owner bears its appropriate cost. Any property owner who refuses to meet consumer demand thereby loses income, or loses an increase in the value of his property, or both. He pays a price for ignoring consumer demand. He is generally legally free to do what he chooses with his property, so long as he does not injure (physically or morally) any other person; he cannot use his property free of charge.1

Property owners are going to use their land that best supports the social community because it is the most profitable. Community, however, does not mean State.

COMMUNITY NEEDS

Too often politicians and voters run to the government to meet the needs of the people. While limited government involvement is needed to provide services, primarily for public protection, government is not meant to meet all the needs of the people. The State is just one form of Godordained government; the other two are family and church. Gary North writes:

The three God-ordained hierarchies are family, church, and State. All three are governments. All three are marked by oaths before God. All three are bottoms-up system of appeals courts, especially church and State. Christian maturity increases when individual self-government under God’s law increases.2

A free market society thrives under multiple hierarchies of authority, hierarchies derived from family, church, and State.

FAMILY INHERITANCE

Genesis 1:28 teaches man to be “fruitful and multiply.” God was instructing Adam and Eve to start a family and to maintain their property. The primary property owners are the family. A healthy respect for property should first be learned within the family. It is within the family structure that the work ethic is learned through children being taught that all things provided are from God and that good stewardship is required.

Not only can property be an inheritance for our family, but also and more importantly, a strong work ethic can be inherited. It is this type of inheritance we pass onto our children that helps them to develop into productive members of society.

As a productive member of society, a young man or woman learns to earn his or her “daily bread.” The Bible clearly teaches that we are to work for our sustenance:

For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10

Notice that the Apostle Paul did not say if anyone cannot work, but will not work. If someone is incapacitated from working, then society, preferably through the church, should help meet the needs of this person and the family. Once this person is capable of working, then the societal assistance should end.

The current welfare system teaches families that they can depend on the government to meet their needs. The Center for Reclaiming America wrote in 1997:

Despite government’s claims that the welfare system does not promote long-term dependence, the record proves just the opposite. A Heritage Foundation study shows that the 4.7 million families on AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] in 1995 have spent an average of six and a half years on welfare. The average length of stay for welfare families is 13 years, and 75 percent of all welfare recipients remain on the program five years or longer. The current system is based on the assumption that higher welfare benefits and expanded eligibility are good for children. But this is simply not the case. Higher welfare benefits do not help children; instead, they increase dependence and compound negative feelings of self-doubt. A study by the Congressional Budget Office showed that long periods of welfare dependency can actually reduce a child’s IQ by as much as 20 percent.3

CHURCH AND STATE

It is clear that government dependence needs to end. For this to happen, two steps must be taken. First, able-bodied adults receiving government assistance need to be forced to find work and to make themselves more employable through training. Second, churches and faith-based organizations must take a more active role in providing assistance. The church should not only meet the physical and emotional needs of the community, but also provide spiritual and moral counseling.

The State, and in increasingly more cases, the church, can provide job training to help welfare recipients become more marketable. A look at the tomorrow’s job needs from the Department of Labor shows the following:

1. Total employment is expected to increase from 145.6 million in 2004 to 164.5 million in 2014, or by 13 percent.

2. Education and health services. This industry supersector is projected to grow faster, 30.6 percent, and add more jobs than any other industry supersector. About 3 out of every 10 new jobs created in the U.S. economy will be in either the healthcare and social assistance or private educational services sectors.

3. Professional and business services. This industry supersector, which includes some of the fastest growing industries in the U.S. economy, will grow by 27.8 percent and add more than 4.5 million new jobs.

4. Information. Employment in the information supersector is expected to increase by 11.6 percent, adding 364,000 jobs by 2014. Information contains some of the fast-growing computer-related industries such as software publishers; Internet publishing and broadcasting; and Internet service providers, Web search portals, and data processing services. Employment in these industries is expected to grow by 67.6 percent, 43.5 percent, and 27.8 percent, respectively.4

These labor statistics show that the job market is only going to increase and adults on welfare can get a good job if they are willing and able to train for it. There are many government provided job-training programs and as more adults on the welfare rolls avail themselves of this training, the need for government assistance will decrease.

Many churches and faith-based organizations are stepping up and providing immediate care for the impoverished and homeless. These organizations also provide the training and mentoring needed to help people get back on their feet. One such organization is Churches United Inc., in Des Moines, Iowa. Their mission statement says:

The agency’s mission is to provide free shelter to homeless adults regardless of physical or emotional conditions, and to facilitate their move toward self-sufficiency. Short-term goals are to provide and enhance safe emergency housing and meals to meet the immediate survival needs of extremely low-income persons from throughout Polk County. The agency’s long term goal is to provide and enhance resource services, programming and assistance to move participants beyond homelessness and poverty toward sustainable independent living.5

When Christians take an active role in society there is less need for government intervention. Christians are bibli-

cally mandated to help the poor. Psalm 10:18 instructs us “to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may oppress no more.” When we help the poor help themselves, they will not remain oppressed.

This does not mean that the church or the State is expected to help the person who will not work. This is not assistance but enabling the sloth!

Laziness casts one into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer hunger.

Proverbs 19:15

Working is good for the soul but laziness will dull your spirit, and if you will not work, you receive justice…hunger. To have a welfare system that rewards laziness is shameful to our great nation. This is contrary to the “pursuit of happiness” our nation was founded on and the God-ordained work for which man was created.

THE POOR AMONG US

One school of liberal thought about the poor is that poverty causes crime, as though this is an excuse. Liberals believe that government can eliminate poverty and crime. Nowhere in the Bible will you find an excuse for crime. You will, however, find that the poor were always among the people in the Bible and they will remain forever.

For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.

Deuteronomy 15:11

For the poor you have with you always…

John 12:8a

If the government could eliminate poverty, one could safely assume the Bible would teach this; it does not. Additionally, if an infusion of money could eliminate poverty, Jesus would have taught us to give to the poor to eliminate poverty. Again, the Bible does not teach this. Also, the 40 different state lotteries should be solving much of the poverty problem.

Even many of the “winners” of state lotteries end up losers in the long run. According to an article in the New York Post: “About once a month on average, a hapless millionaire winner of one of the 37 [currently 40] state lotteries goes bust and files for bankruptcy, experts say. That’s the ragsto-rags fate of about one-third of all winners.”

Further, winning the lottery does not seem to satisfy the desire for riches. Duke University professors Clotfelter and Cook found that lottery jackpot winners substantially increased their spending on lottery tickets after winning.6

So the lottery not only causes bankruptcy, it also increases greed! Money is not the answer to poverty, love is. Love in the form of giving, training, and mentoring in the biblical standards of a free market system. The alternative is our present day system of the government forcing people to give through their tax dollars to those unwilling to work. This is at best wealth redistribution and at worse stealing.

GENEROUS TO A FAULT

Whenever tragedy strikes America, Americans dig deep into their pockets as witnessed during the 9/11 attacks, the tsunami in Indonesia, and Hurricane Katrina. Evangelicals are in the forefront of meeting the needs of natural disaster victims. In 2005, the Southern Baptist Convention responded to 166 disasters, contributed 165,748 volunteer days, prepared 17,124,738 meals, repaired 7,246 buildings, cleaned 13,986 yards, and provided 155,967 showers.

Meeting the needs of the poor is not an issue of supply but of distribution. This nation has plenty of wealth and it doesn’t need to be redistributed; it needs to be lovingly shared.

Here is just one example of the enormous wealth of America. The week of June 12-18, 2006, nearly 130 million dollars was spent on home video rentals. That’s in one week. If Americans would put just one penny for every dollar they spend on video rentals, this country could donate close to 1.3 million dollars a week to charity! That comes out close to an additional 68 million dollars a year donated to charity. Make that a dime and now we have almost 680 million dollars a year.

It is charity, the King James Version of the Bible’s word for love, which meets the needs of the poor and oppressed. Charity begins in the heart and I may be naïve to actually believe that this nation can have a change of heart to where it is the people, not the government that helps its fellow man.

PASS THE OFFERING PLATE

So how are evangelicals doing in their giving? (That loud thud was this book being dropped!) John and Sylvia Ronsvalle state in their book The State of Church Giving Through 2002:

In the year 2001-2002, church giving increased by $11 per member, once inflation was factored in. However, viewed as a percentage of income, per-member giving dropped slightly. In the bigger picture, church members have given around 2.6 percent of their personal income to the church since 1999. If church members had given the biblical 10 percent minimum in 2002, an additional $152 billion a year would have been available for the work of evangelism and compassion. The authors argue that it would have taken only 3 percent of this amount to stop the annual deaths of 6.9 million children around the world. They call this a crime on the part of the church, saying that our acts of omission—our silence in the face of ongoing suffering—is perhaps our greatest sin. The Ronsvalles call on church leaders to stop ignoring the moral implications of the church’s lack of giving.7

I will end this chapter this way. Fellow evangelical, you know what the Bible says about tithing. We’ve all heard the sermons on Malachi 3:8 that not tithing is robbing God. Take heed the Ronsvalles’ call. The moral implication of robbing God is being a thief. And in case it’s been awhile since you’ve looked at your copy of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not steal” is the 8th Commandment (Exodus 20:15).

How does tithing tie into the free market economy advocated by the Bible? Jesus said it best:

Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, ‘Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.’ So they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s , and to God the things that are God’s.

Matthew 22:17-21

To participate in this free market economy, we have to pay our taxes. Our legislators determine the amount of taxes we pay. These amounts are negotiable and can be influenced by citizens. To rightfully participate in God’s design for our economy, we have to tithe, which means ten percent of our before tax income. This amount is not negotiable. The only choice we have is to obey or disobey.

1 North, Gary. Inherit the Earth: Biblical Blueprints for Economics. Fort Worth, Texas: Dominion Press.

1987. 21-22.

2 Ibid. 23-24.

3 The Center for Reclaiming America. Issues Tearing Our Nation’s Fabric. Chapter 24: Welfare Reform. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries. 1997. From website: http://www.leaderu.com/issues/fabric/chap24.html

4 Occupational Outlook Handbook. Tomorrow’s Jobs.Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last Modified Date: December 20, 2005. From website: http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm

5 Churches United Inc. of the Greater Des Moines Area, 205 15th Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. From website: http://www.churchesunitedshelter.org/index.html

6 Citizen Link – Focus on Social Issues. “Lotteries in the United States: An Overview.” July 9, 2003. From website: http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/gambling/lottery/a0026821.cfm

7 Generous Giving. Book Reviews: The State of Church Giving Through 2002. From website: http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=50&page=551#Ronsvalle9

CHAPTER 8

Foreign Affairs

Evangelicals are playing an increasingly larger role in US foreign policy. The Council on Foreign Relations President Richard N. Haass says evangelicals are having “a dynamic and growing influence in American public life.” While at one time primarily focused on domestic issues, evangelicals are now turning their attention to foreign issues.

NO ISOLATIONISM

While there is an isolationalist movement afoot in America because of the Iraq War, evangelicals are at the forefront of America playing a greater role in international affairs. Howard LaFranchi, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, reports:

Indeed, the aftermath of Iraq has some historians predicting a bout of American isolationism similar to what occurred after Vietnam. But other analysts say that with so many conservative Christians now convinced of activism in foreign affairs, old patterns of periodic introspection have been broken.

“Without a determined constituency pressuring for engagement in international affairs, it would be likely that given the difficulties in Iraq you would have had the administration hunkering down a bit, and the American people with them,” says Allen Hertzke, an expert and noted author on religion in US foreign policy at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. But instead, you have these substantial forces pushing on human rights causes and demanding intervention.

Some note that because the evangelicals’ foreignpolicy interests are motivated by religious convictions and not a temporary cause, the movement has deeper roots. “These people are not flavor-of-the-month types,” says Mark Palmer, a former diplomat focused on democratization and now vice chairman of Freedom House in Washington. “The fact they are so involved now will be a factor in us not becoming isolationist.”1

Evangelicals are leading the fight to stop the genocide in the Sudan. They are similarly leading the fight against AIDS in the African continent. And evangelical pressure helped with the passing of the North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004. Evangelical influence pushed the Bush Administration to take these measures in the right direction, although the suffering in these cases continues. Why is evangelical influence so strong with the Bush Administration?

A HIGHER CALLING

Having an evangelical Christian as President obviously accounts for much of the evangelical influence. President Bush holds many of the beliefs that are important to evangelicals. President Bush believes that “faith can change people’s hearts, and, by changing hearts, change society.”2

Evangelicals have a clear connection with their faith and they believe in the “universality of freedom,” as President Bush describes it. At an April 2004 press conference, the President stated, “I believe freedom is the almighty God’s gift to each man and woman in this world.” Neo-conservatives and evangelicals have a shared goal of spreading democracy and religious freedom, made stronger after the 9/11 attacks.

The clearest threat to freedom today is terrorism. This explains why 68% of evangelicals polled in October 2005 continue to support the Iraq War, compared to less than half of non-evangelicals. Evangelicals understand that terrorism is evil and that evil must be fought.

Not all evangelicals agree with this use of the word “evil.” In an interview conducted by the website Ekklesia, Glen Stassen, Fuller Theological Seminary’s Louis B. Smedes professor of Christian ethics, stated:

Bush’s religious rhetoric confuses the cause of Christianity with that of a nation at war. Calling the three nations [Iran, Iraq, and North Korea] the “axis of evil” and refusing to acknowledge any errors that he has made, that sets up a dichotomy between righteous United States and unrighteous “axis of evil,” It leads to a crusade in which Christians think the Christian thing to do is support war-making against an allegedly unrighteous enemy.3

Professor Stassen is cautioning evangelicals from jumping on the war bandwagon, but it was and still is clear that Iraq was an “unrighteous enemy.” President Bush and evangelicals understood this and that is why we went to war with Iraq. Sometimes a higher calling will demand tough decisions from us and that is why most evangelicals consider President Bush a blessing.

It is not unusual for evangelicals to be out of the mainstream, in fact evangelicals are counter-culture. We’ve already seen that evangelicals have unpopular beliefs when it comes to morality, abortion, same-sex marriage, and education. It takes moral and political clarity to stand on principle when the entire world is saying you’re wrong. That’s why the Apostle Paul instructed Christians to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). We have a higher calling.

A CITY ON A HILL

President Ronald Reagan said, “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.” Evangelicals embrace this description of America because it is in line with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:

You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Matthew 5:14-16

Jesus is primarily teaching that evangelicals are agents in the salvation of men, providing light for spiritual blindness. It is this light that pricks man’s conscience and so their need for a Savior. Evangelism is the only purpose we have on earth that we will not be able to do in heaven.

As a nation built on biblical principles (see chapter 10), we are also called to be an example unto all nations, a city on a hill. It is true our nation has suffered many a black eye because of our national misdeeds, but what other nation is greater than America? That’s right, I am saying America is the greatest nation not only in the world, but history.

We are “the city on a hill” because God has blessed this great land. And this country has spilled more blood for liberty on more foreign shores than any other country because we believe in spreading freedom and democracy around the world. Free and democratic nations are peace-loving nations and only go to war as a last resort. It is democracy that defeats tyranny, not socialism, not communism, not pacifism, but free people fighting for the right and privilege to be free. This is our greatest gift to the world, our willingness to fight for our freedom. Evangelicals must never forget that!

AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST

Ambassador is defined as “a diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government or sovereign to another, usually for a specific length of time.”4 We send ambassadors to almost every nation in the world to represent the United States. This is an important function and these positions should be filled with wise men and women who not only believe in the greatness of America, but also stand ready to support the President’s foreign policy. Anything less should be grounds for immediate termination from their post.

Some of America’s greatest ambassadors are missionaries. They are not only ambassadors of good will from America, but also they are ambassadors for Christ, spreading the gospel to the ends of the earth. Some missionaries have actually filled ambassadorships.

In 1946, following World War II, in order to strengthen its pro-Chiang Kai-shek, antiCommunist policy, the U.S. government went so far as to make the famous missionary John Leighton Stuart its ambassador. He openly both administered U.S. policy toward China and directed mission board and missionary activity in China.5

Somehow I don’t see that happening today. I can just hear the protests of separation of church and state. The reason missionaries make good ambassadors is because many have developed rapports with government officials in order to perform their missions. Missionaries know how a particular nation operates and are close to the people. Diplomats do not always have this access.

I’m not openly advocating missionaries being used as ambassadors, but they are a good resource that has been called on to conduct foreign policy. Christianity Today reports:

In addition to an interest in the conditions of people around the world, Robert Seiple, president and founder of the Institute for Global Engagement and former U.S. ambassador at large for International Religious Freedom, says that evangelicals have long influenced American foreign policy.

“Nongovernment organizations have always had substantial amounts of influence in the world and substantial amounts of power in terms of leveraging policy back in the states towards that world,” he told CT. “It might very well be true that when the history books of the evangelical movement are written, the greatest contribution is the engagement of people to be involved outside our borders, and then reporting back on the situations we find in those most difficult parts of the world.”

He said that when he was president of World Vision, senators often came to the organization for information on foreign issues. “When it came to work being done outside the United States, the very best information was coming from those best integrated in the grassroots of the country— not from people watching C-SPAN inside the beltway.”6

Why do evangelicals make good ambassadors? Because we are called to be “ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us…” (2 Cor. 5:20) The Apostle Paul knew what it took to be an ambassador; in fact he used diplomacy.

And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be a partaker of it with you.

1 Corinthians 9:20-23

Paul was willing to forego his freedom from the yoke of Jewish ceremonial law so that he could be amongst the Jews and win them over to the gospel. Paul was not worried about what privileges he might be giving up because doing good for the sake of Christ was his ultimate goal. Paul believed in the greatness of Christ and supported the spread of the gospel. He knew that man needed to be reconciled to God through Christ. This is the only true path to peace.

MIDDLE EAST PEACE

Evangelicals have recently felt pressure to come out with a stance towards the Middle East peace process. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is attempting to come up with an official position on Middle East conflict. Ori Nir writing for Forward Newspaper Online reports:

Those behind the push favor a resolution that would, in addition to strongly supporting Israel and its well-being, recognize the rights of Palestinians and call for a two-state solution.7

As an evangelical and a student of both the Bible and history, I do not see the present situation allowing for a two-state solution. Hamas, newly elected to represent the Palestinian people, is a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Can we realistically look to Hamas to make peace with Israel? The Council on Foreign Relations answers:

Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the Palestinian Authority with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” Its leaders have called suicide attacks the “F-16” of the Palestinian people. Hamas believes “peace talks will do no good,” Rantisi said in April 2004. “We do not believe we can live with the enemy.”

Abdel Aziz Rantisi one of Hamas’ founders, took over as the head of Hamas after Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s death. However, he was killed by an Israeli air strike in Gaza less than a month later, on April 17, 2004.8

Is Israel expected to peacefully co-exist with a terrorist organization whose leaders do not believe we can live with the enemy, and has a founding charter that commits Hamas to Israel’s destruction? If the NAE believes that Israel and Hamas can peacefully co-exist, it should also call for the new Iraqi government to just get along with Al-Qaeda. I recognize the NAE’s commitment to Israel’s safety, but it is naïve to believe in a possible two-state solution as long as Hamas exists. Evangelicals must never lose sight of this fact.

Here is a disturbing fact that you will not see on the evening news. It is believed by many Americans that Muslim schools in the United States teach tolerance of Judaism and other faiths, and promote coexistence with Israel. That is a myth. Mitchell G. Bard posted the following information on the Jewish Virtual Library:

While it is well-known that many Muslim schools in Arab and Islamic countries indoctrinate students with hatred of Jews and Israel, it was only recently revealed that similar teachings are prevalent in the United States. Islamic schools in Virginia, for example, have maps of the Middle East in their classrooms that are missing Israel. On one map, Israel was blackened out and replaced with “Palestine.” An 11th grade textbook teaches that one sign of the Day of Judgment will be that Muslims will fight and kill Jews, who will hide behind trees that say, “Oh Muslim, Oh servant of God, here is a Jew hiding behind me. Come here and kill him.”

The attacks are not only against Jews, but also Christians. Students are taught, for example that the Day of Judgment won’t come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross, and converts everyone to Islam.

The private schools are legally allowed to teach whatever they want as long as they meet state requirements.

A Los Angeles Muslim foundation insinuated similar hateful views into the public schools. The Omar Ibn Khattab Foundation donated 300 copies of a translation of the Koran that contained footnotes describing Jews as “arrogant” and “people without faith.” After discovering the anti-Semitic passages, the books were removed.9

Jesus knew we would face much confusion in the world when He warned us, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt.10:16). We must understand that the enemies of Israel are the enemies of America. We may not compromise when it comes to Israel’s existence.

NO COMPROMISE ON ISRAEL

In Genesis 12:3, God promised Abraham “I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” This is part of what is known as the Abrahamic Covenant; it is a personal promise from God to Abraham and his descendents. Now I’m sure some of you may be having a hard time believing a covenant made over 4,000 years ago is still relevant today.

We will not go into great detail about the relevancy of this covenant; I encourage you to refer to the “Further Reading” at the end of this chapter for more on this topic. However, I do want to address a couple of arguments against this covenant’s relevancy.

Some view this covenant as having been replaced by the New Testament covenant in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A brief review of Scripture reveals that Jesus did not replace the old covenant, He fulfilled it. Abraham’s seed through Jesus and the Jews blesses all people. Does this apply to the nation of Israel? Dr. Renald E. Showers writes:

Jesus’ statements in Matthew 25:31-46 (especially verses 40 and 45) seem to indicate that, when God promised to bless those who blessed Abraham and to curse those who cursed him, He intended this to be applicable, not only to Abraham, but also to Israel. In other words, God’s blessing or cursing of the peoples of the world would be determined to a large extent by their blessing or cursing of Israel. Jesus’ statements in Matthew 25 promise blessing to saved Gentiles who will aid persecuted Jews of the future Tribulation period and judgment to unsaved Gentiles who will not aid them.10

Another argument against the Abrahamic Covenant is that it was conditional, based on the obedience of Abraham and his descendents. It is true that Abraham had to leave his homeland for the Promised Land, but the Got Questions website answers the conditional/unconditional debate:

The Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant. God made promises to Abraham that required nothing of Abraham. Genesis 15:18-21 describes a part of the Abrahamic Covenant, specifically dealing with the dimensions of the land God promised to Abraham and his descendants.11

The United States, with evangelicals greatly influencing its foreign policy, rightfully stands with Israel against an ever-increasing growth of anti-Semitism. Evangelicals do not support Israel because they expect some special blessing for doing so or trying to ensure conditions meet end-times prophecy. We should never mix up our Christian beliefs as Christian motives. Evangelicals support Israel as a nation and Jews as a people because of our Christian love and respect for biblical covenants.

Evangelicals also put their money where their mouth is in the form of financial support for Jews, especially those in former Soviet bloc and poor countries. This support helps relocate Jewish emigrants back to Israel and settle into their homeland.

To quote former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has “no greater friends and allies than” evangelicals. We believe the Jews are the Chosen People of God and that God’s promises to Israel are still good today. We must continue to fight for policies that support Israel’s right to exist. To do otherwise is to invite God’s curse upon us.

Further Reading

Aikman, David. A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of

George W. Bush. Nashville: W Publishing Group. 2004

Brog, David. Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State. Frontline. 2006

Hagee, Dr. John C. The Battle for Jerusalem. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. 2001.

1 LaFranchi, Howard, “Evangelized Foreign Policy?” Christian Science Monitor (Boston), (March 2, 2006). From website: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0302/p01s01-usfp.html

2 Aikman, David. A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush. (Nashville: W Publishing Group,2004). 117.

3 Source: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_041012bsh.shtm

4 Source: www.dictionary.com

5 Source: http://www.amitynewsservice.org/page.php?page=1537

6 Hertz, Todd, “Opinion Roundup: Are Evangelicals the ‘New Internationalists?” Christianity Today Online, (posted May 29, 2002). From website: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/120/21.0.html

7 Nir, Ori, “Evangelicals Eye Middle Ground On Middle East,” Forward Newspaper Online, (posted July 1, 2005). From website: http://www.forward.com/main/printer-friendly.php?id=3395

8 Council on Foreign Relations, “Backgrounder: Hamas,” (Updated June 14, 2006). From website: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#1

9 Bard, Mitchell G, “Myths & Facts Online: The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries.” Jewish Virtual Library, A Division of the AmericanIsraeli Cooperative Enterprise.

10 Showers, Dr. Renald E., “The Abrahamic Covenant.” Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. From website: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/biblical-prophecy/BP1101W1.htm

11 Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Abrahamic-covenant.html

CHAPTER 9

Military

Evangelical influence in the military has been growing since World War II. Not only do evangelicals strongly support the military, they make up 40% of the active duty force. Evangelicals now make up 60% of the chaplain corps.1

Many find the Bible as contradictory when it comes to the military, particularly in the case of war. Some pacifists quote the Bible to support their reasons for opposing war. What seems as a contradiction is actually a paradox, or an apparent contradiction.2

Pacifists quote Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount of not repaying evil for evil, turning the other cheek, and loving our enemies. In the pacifists’ mind, violence is never justified according to the teachings of Christ (Matt. 5:38-48).

The context of “turning the other cheek” is overlooking an insult, to avoid strife. The Greek word for “smite” (from the King James Version) is rhapizo and can mean to “slap the face.” The New International Version Study Bible notes:

The Greek verb used here means ‘slaps you with the back of the hand.’ It was more of an insult than an act of violence. The point is that it is better to be insulted even twice than to take the matter to court.3

In the context of Matthew 5:38-43, Jesus was teaching Christians to give up their right to not be insulted, to “resist” the temptation to sue someone, even people we consider “evil.” If I was to follow the pacifist way of thinking, then I would have to give up my right to self-defense and allow myself to be violently attacked. Although Jesus was later violently beaten, it was not because He was advocating pacifism; it was because His mission on earth was the Cross. The thesis of the Sermon on the Mount is how to live the Christian life. We must take great care not to use verses out of this context.

THE NEED FOR ARMIES

The first census ever mandated in the Bible was a count of all militarily able-bodied men age twenty and above. God instructs Moses: Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their father’s houses, according to the number of names, every male individually, from twenty years old ad above—who are able to go to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their armies.

Numbers 1:2-3

After the nation of Israel split into two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, Judah’s King Amaziah mustered for war with Edom (part of present-day Jordan):

Moreover Amaziah gathered Judah together and set over them captains of thousands and captains of hundreds, according to their fathers’ houses, throughout Judah and Benjamin; and he numbered them from twenty years old and above, and found them to be three hundred thousand choice men, able to go to war, who could handle spear and shield.

2 Chronicles 25:5

Although God never intended man to go to war, He nevertheless knew that evil would try to prevent His will on earth. Evil must be fought and sometimes this means war, always as a last resort. It takes armies to fight a war.

BIBLICAL REASONS FOR WAR

The first case of war found in the Bible is in Genesis 14. The King of Elam (Western Iran), Chedorlaomer, and his allies had conquered many cities. The kings of these cities, including Sodom and Gomorrah, decided to throw off the yoke of oppression they had been under for 12 years. Chedorlaomer defeated these kings and decided to enjoy the spoils of war. Living in Sodom was Lot, and he and his family were taken into captivity. Abram (Abraham) and 318 trained men went to rescue Abram’s nephew Lot and his family. Abram led his troops to war and in the middle of the night overtook the enemy and rescued Lot and all his possessions. God had not only blessed Abram’s conquest, but He had also lead Abram to victory:

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: ‘Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.’

Genesis 14:18-20

It was after this conquest that God made His first covenant with Abram (Gen. 15).

The Battle of Jericho is one of the most famous Old Testament accounts of war. Joshua is considered one of the great heroes of the Bible. Every child’s Bible has this story and there is even a Christian video game depicting the Battle of Jericho. Here’s how the battle went:

So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets, and it came about, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people shouted with a great shout and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight ahead, and they took the city. And they utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword. And they burned the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and gold and articles of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord. Then Joshua made them take an oath at that time, saying cursed before the Lord is the man who rises up and builds this city Jericho; with the loss of his first-born he shall lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son he shall set up its gates. So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land.

Joshua 6:20-27

God had given Joshua his peculiar marching orders (vv. 1-19), and in the end of the seven days, it was God who gave the victory to Joshua and Israel because “the Lord was with Joshua.”

The total destruction and annihilation mandated by God in many Old Testament accounts cause great angst among non-believers and confusion for believers. My own son used to struggle with these biblical depictions until he faced terrorists in Iraq. He once told me in a letter from Iraq, “Dad, I used to struggle with God having women and children being killed during combat, but having seen such evil and hatred even in the eyes of women and child, I now understand it.” My son was by no means advocating the killing of women and children, but he was beginning to understand why God had whole peoples killed. Biblical scholar Archer Gleason explains it this way:

In every case the baneful infection of degenerate idolatry and moral depravity had to be removed before Israel could safely settle down in these regions and set up a monotheistic, lawgoverned commonwealth as a testimony for the one true God.

Much as we regret the terrible loss of life, we must remember that far greater mischief would have resulted if they had been permitted to live on in the midst of the Hebrew nation. These incorrigible degenerates of the Canaanite civilization were a sinister threat to the spiritual survival of Abraham’s race. The failure to carry through completely the policy of extermination of the heathen in the Land of Promise later led to the moral and religious downfall of the Twelve Tribes in the days of the Judges (Judges 1:1-3, 10-15, 19-23). Not until the time of David, some centuries later, did the Israelites succeed in completing their conquest of all the land that had been promised to the descendants of Abraham

(Gen.15:18-21).4

Again, evangelicals do not advocate the extermination of any group of people who oppose Christianity. The purpose here is to help others understand God’s purpose of wars of extermination. So what about today? Is there a just war?

JUST WAR

I have been asked on a couple of occasions how my son, as a Christian, is justified in killing an enemy soldier. In both instances I was asked if my son had not violated the 6th Commandment, “Thou shall not kill” (KJV). Most modern Bible versions translate this commandment, “You shall not murder,” which is the most accurate. The Hebrew lo tirtzach (Ex. 20:13) and the Greek phoneuo (used in Matt. 5:21) both refer to murder. To have to kill an enemy combatant does not equate to murder.

Augustine, one of the earliest church fathers, adopted the doctrine of just war and Thomas Aquinas further addressed this doctrine. Dr. Mark Clark writes:

With modifications as to intent in war added later by Thomas Aquinas, there are seven generally accepted tenets of the ‘Just War’ doctrine. They are divided into two types of arguments. The first, jus ad bellum, are the principles that establish the justness of the war itself; the second, jus in bello, are the principles that establish just conduct in the war itself:

Jus ad bellum (Justness of War):

(1) Competent authority: A war must be declared by politically responsible authorities and not by private individuals.

(2) Probability of success: A war should not be undertaken if there is no obvious hope for success.

(3) Last Resort: A war must be a last resort after sincere efforts have been made to resolve the controversy peacefully.

(4) Just Intent: The object of a war must be peace and reconciliation and not the unlimited destruction of the enemy state.

(5) Just Cause: The war must be an act of defense in response to armed aggression.

Jus in bello (Justice in war):

(6) Proportionality: The good brought about by a war should outweigh its evils in cost and destruction to both sides and the means used should be proportional to the harm caused.

(7) Discriminate means: Military actions should not be waged that directly intend to take the lives of noncombatants (i.e., civilians or innocents).5

Most pacifists reject the concept of just war doctrine, and the preemptive strike on Iraq stretched the established limits. Evangelicals, among many biblical scholars and religious leaders, struggled with attacking Iraq without having first been attacked. Charles Colson, writing in Christianity Today, states:

The question of preemptive strike turns on facts. For 12 years, Saddam Hussein has mocked the United Nations and the world. If he is, as the U.S. and British believe, stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and acting in concert with terrorists, he forfeits claims of sovereign immunity.

Unlike the Cold War, when early warning systems could detect missile launches, terrorists give no warning. If Saddam Hussein were to prepare a missile for launch, the U.S. would certainly be warranted in firing in self-defense. Giving a terrorist a dirty bomb to be delivered in a suitcase is no different—except for delivery time—from a missile launch.

Of course, all of this presupposes solid intelligence and the goodwill of U.S. and Western leaders. I find it hard to believe that any President, aware of the awesome consequences of his decision and of the swiftness of second-guessing in a liberal democracy, would act recklessly.

Christians should remember that the just-war doctrine is not grounded in revenge, punishment, or even justice. Thomas Aquinas discussed it in Summa Theologica—not in the section on justice but in the section on charity (that is, the love of God). As Christian scholar Darrell Cole writes, “the Christian who fails to use force to aid his neighbor when prudence dictates that force is the best way to render that aid is an uncharitable Christian. Hence Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war … fail to show love towards their neighbor as well as towards God.”

Out of love of neighbor, then, Christians can and should support a preemptive strike, if ordered by the appropriate magistrate to prevent an imminent attack.

In this day and age of global terror where borders and oceans no longer provide safety, we must use the policy of preemption to ensure our nation’s safety.

WHY IRAQ?

Here is a copy of a “Letter to the Editor” titled “Why Iraq?” I wrote which was published in the Pensacola New Journal in April 2004. The letter is quite long but it addresses the issue of why war with Iraq was unavoidable:

It seems as though many have missed the obvious. Never mind the politics of the Democrats and the resurrected anti-war movement, recent polls show that a majority of Americans have lost sight of what happened on September 11, 2001. War was declared on America by a hateful group of people. Americans died that day and Americans will continue to die if the terrorists have their way. The question is what Americans are going to die and where. That is our only choice.

Before I come off as being too cavalier, please know that I am a 22-year Army veteran and my son is an Army airborne infantryman. He is in Korea right now, but an active role in the war on terror is a real possibility for him. I realize that my stance is going to put my own son in harms way.

Osama Bin Laden declared war through a fatwa “calling on all Muslims to kill Americans where they can, when they can.” He did not declare war on only the military or only the government saying, “We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians.”

Here is the simple truth about this: Americans are going to die. They died in the World Trade Center in 1993. They died in Khobar Towers in 1996. They died in the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies in 1998. They died on the USS Cole in 2000. And finally, Americans died on American soil in 2001. Terrorists are hell-bent on killing Americans.

Our sad choice as a nation is to decide what Americans and where they will die. So why in Iraq? The United Nations uncovered evidence that proved Saddam Hussein was trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons The London Telegraph revealed in January 2003.

A top-secret memo October 27, 2003, was sent to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The memo states that, “Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta.”

As President Bush stated as his April 13th press conference, Baghdad is a battlefield, not the only fight. Many complaints are that our brave men and women are dying. It is an unfortunate truth, but one that comes with the risk of volunteering for the military.

Contrary to Andy Rooney’s claim, “But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home,” our brave military do gladly risk their lives for us back here at home. Are there a few who refuse to go to Iraq or go back to Iraq? Of course, that has always been the case with the military.

I guarantee you that if you were to go to the military and say, Americans are going to die because terrorists want us dead and we prefer to go after them instead of them coming after us, you would have and forever will have more volunteers than needed. Need proof? Here is an excerpt from one of my son’s letters from Korea:

“It’s not an easy life that us infantrymen choose to live, but we do it because we love it, and because someone’s got to. And when we freeze and suffer in the cold, when we hurt and bleed, and when we can’t seem to muster the strength to assault through the objective and decimate the enemy, we gotta remember why we do it. Thank you for reminding us of our duty not only to ourselves, but also to the people that love and care about us, the people we signed up to fight and possibly even give our lives for.”

War is an ugly thing and so is evil. They are the realities of a fallen world. President Bush has taken the lead on this war. We did not pick this fight; it was brought to us. Now we’re going after them. The quickest way to get this war over and our soldiers home is to win. As the President said the alternative is unacceptable.

NOTE: My son did deploy to Iraq where he saw combat in Fallujah and Ramadi, both cities hotbeds for terrorist activities. He lost best friends and saw more combat in one year than most military men and women see in a lifetime. He is currently stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado and is scheduled to return to Iraq sometime between the months of October 2006 and April 2007. I, as much as anyone, wants to see this war come to an end, but as I wrote in April 2004, the quickest way to get this war over is to win.

RALLY AROUND THE TROOPS

It is a difficult thing to know that your beliefs and/or actions may send people into harm’s way, especially when they are your own flesh and blood. I cannot, however, allow my personal fears to keep me from making the hard decisions. I live in the world of “is” even though I would love to live in the world of “should.” “Should” is the world where utopia can exist and there is never a need for war; the world John Lennon sang of in “Imagine.” I am a realist and I know that the only way evil will be defeated is to be eradicated. And to choose not to protect your family, to avoid war at all cost is a world of false hope. John Stuart Mill addressed the issue of pacifism best:

War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

War indeed is an ugly thing, but thankfully we have the brave men and women of our military. It is the greatest in the world and in all of history. Most of them believe in the cause of freedom and believe that is what they are fighting for in Iraq.

Anti-war people say they can support the troops without supporting the war, but can you really? When you say the military is killing innocent civilians, abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, comparing them to the Nazis and gulag prisons, what are you saying about the military? When you say the Bush Administration promotes torture, and when evangelical and other ecumenical leaders come out demanding that the US stop its policy of torture (a policy that does not exist), what are you saying about the troops?

You may not intend to imply this, but for torture to be used as a policy means that the military is complicit. It may not be your intention, but when you say the war is a lost cause, when the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen know they are winning, what does that say about the confidence you have in them? Your words not only hurt the morale of our troops, but they also embolden our enemy. Your words are published in anti-American newspapers such as Al-Jazeera.

I am not saying Americans do not have a right to voice opposition to this war, but please think about how your words are going to be viewed, by both the military and its enemies. We are fighting an enemy that is emboldened by our perceived weakness and hides in the shadows when we flex our might. The question is this: do you want our military to win? You might be inclined to feel that I’m questioning your patriotism with a question like that but I believe it’s a fair question…do you want our military to win? If yes, get behind the Commander-in-Chief, one that enjoys a level of popularity and respect from the troops not seen in decades.

Freedom is worth fighting for, and yes, if necessary, dying for, even on foreign soil. We have a great military not only because of the weapons they have, but also because of whom they are. They are the true freedom fighters and they have something our enemy despises and cannot understand. Our late, great President Ronald Reagan said it best:

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.

Further Reading

Clark, Mark T. “The Paradox of War and Pacifism.” American Science Affiliation. (1995). From website:http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/clark.html

Loveland, Anne C. American Evangelicals and the U.S. Military 1942-1993, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997

1 Brady, Jeff. “Evangelical Chaplains Test Bounds of Faith in Military.” National Public Radio: All Things Considered. (July 27, 2005). From website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4772331

2 Clark, Mark T. “The Paradox of War and Pacifism.” American Science Affiliation. (1995). From website:http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/clark.html

3 The NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition. The Zondervan Corporation. 1995. 1146

4 Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1982), pp.

5 Clark. “The Paradox of War and Pacifism.”

CHAPTER 10

One Nation Under God

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.

If he were alive today, I wonder what President Dwight D. Eisenhower would say to Michael Newdow. Michael Newdow is the doctor who brought a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter because of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Unless you’ve been completely disconnected from America in the last three years, I’m sure you’re familiar with the case.

Why do I bring President Eisenhower into this lawsuit? President Eisenhower authorized the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. What was Ike’s motive for adding these words? Here’s what he said:

In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 14, 1954

One thing that atheists state correctly when they oppose the pledge today is that the words “under God” were added to denote the “dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty,” again quoting President Eisenhower. This clearly shows just how much our country has changed in the last 50 years. Some would call this progress, but to evangelicals, it is just another indication of the moral decay of our once God-fearing country. The fact that a small minority of people can deny the will of the majority of people based on “separation of church and state” shows how far we’ve “progressed.”

One of my favorite comics growing up was the late Red Skelton. The funny faces he used to make would completely crack me up. What I also loved about him was how patriotic he was. On January 14, 1969, Red Skelton said this about the Pledge:

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that be eliminated from our schools, too? 1

One can only wonder what Red Skelton would say to Michael Newdow.

AN APOSTATE NATION

Many evangelicals lament the decline of the nation stating that we are a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. They are only half-right. We are an apostate nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. An apostate is someone who has abandoned one’s religious faith, and America has clearly abandoned its religious faith.

We have pushed God out of our public schools; children no longer pray in school. We’ve pushed monuments of the Ten Commandments out of public buildings, even courthouses; the very place that the tenets of the Ten Commandments are enforced. We do not allow high school seniors to mention Jesus Christ as part of their valedictorian speech because it might “offend” someone. I’m still trying to find in the Bill of Rights the “right to not be offended.”

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, many people questioned were God was that day if we were such a Godly nation. Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, appeared on NBC’s Today Show and was asked by Jane Clayson, “I’ve heard people say, those who are religious, those who are not, if God is good, how could God let this happen? To that, you say?” Mrs. Lotz very eloquently replied:

I say God is also angry when he sees something like this. I would say also for several years now Americans in a sense have shaken their fist at God and said, God, we want you out of our schools, our government, our business, we want you out of our marketplace. And God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life. Removing His hand of blessing and protection. We need to turn to God first of all and say, God, we’re sorry we have treated you this way and we invite you now to come into our national life. We put our trust in you. We have our trust in God on our coins, we need to practice it.

Anne Graham Lotz, September 13, 2001

As evangelicals like to sometimes say, “That’ll preach!” How long can we push God out of our lives, both privately and publicly, and expect Him to continue blessing us? It is only through His amazing grace that we continue to enjoy His blessing. It is the intercessory prayers of evangelicals and others that are keeping God from completely turning His back on us. God promises:

If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

As a nation, if we are willing to humble ourselves before God and acknowledge Him as the provider and sustainer of our great land, then God will do what He promised in 2 Chronicles 7:14. This is a favorite verse for evangelicals whenever the subject of America and its decline comes up. But what many evangelicals fail to remember and to share with the rest of America is verses 19-20:

But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them, then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them; and this house which I have sanctified for My name I will cast out of My sight, and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.

Can we really expect God to not cast us out of His sight if we as a nation continue to turn away from Him and forsake His laws?

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

How many of you believe that the Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state? Okay, put your hands down and find a copy of the US Constitution. Did you find it in there? No? Surprised? You shouldn’t be because it has never been in the constitution.

Religion was written about in the original constitution in Article VI: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” For those of you fearing an evangelical takeover in Jesusland, there is your protection. The Founders ensured that there would never be a religious test for elected office. This does not mean openly religious men and women cannot be elected, it just means no test will ever be applied.

After the constitution was drafted, many states protested that a bill of rights was not included, as was the case for most state constitutions. We find our freedom to worship in the

1st Amendment to the Constitution, one of the original ten amendments, better known as the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We have the freedom of religion; freedom from the government establishing a religion. We do not have a freedom from religion. In other words, you don’t have the right to not see signs of any religion in the public arena.

Additionally, the federal government was prohibited from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion. Some states actually established state religions, but with the onset of multiple denominations in colonial America, states eventually abandoned a state recognized religion. You may be thinking that doesn’t sound like separation of church and state, and you would be right if today’s concept of separation of church and state was the same as that of the Founding Fathers. It is not!

The original term “separation of church and state” did not come from the government telling the churches to stay clear, but it came from the government telling the churches it would stay clear. In a letter responding to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut, President Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.2 (Emphasis mine)

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802

Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of the federal government placing any restrictions on religious expression. It was never his intent to deny the “free exercise thereof,” as is written in the 1st Amendment. The occasion that caused the Danbury letter was that the Baptists in Connecticut were feeling the pressure of centralized government control. Even though Jefferson was not infringing upon the states’ rights to establish a state religion, he was assuring the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would not do so.

Jefferson wanted to assure that the federal government never limited public religious practices. Notice what he wrote to Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.3

Again, President Jefferson was assuring that the federal government would not favor any particular denomination, not that he would forbid the free exercise, in public, of religious expression.

Howard Dean, of whom we spoke in chapter 1, recently revealed his idea of religious freedom. In an April 19, 2006 interview with the Christian Science Monitor, Governor Dean said:

The religious community has to decide whether they want to be tax exempt or involved in politics.4

Call me paranoid, but it sounds as though Governor Dean, the Democratic Party Chairman, is threatening to remove tax-exempt status to the religious community if they are involved in politics. This is the same Howard Dean who told Christianity Today:

We are definitely going to do religious outreach. Even in my campaign, I was interested in reaching out to evangelicals.5

Liberals, Democrats, the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State just love using that little scare tactic with churches. However, it is quite interesting that religious communities that support Democratic candidates and allow them to give political speeches from the pulpit are free of the threat of losing their tax-exempt status.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lead by its executive director Barry Lynn, like to send out intimidating letters to evangelical pastors telling them that they could lose their church’s tax-exempt status if they put out voter guides or any other political information. This is not true! Dr. Jerry Falwell addressed this issue on July 24, 2004 in his Listen America column:

In the meantime, pastors, continue to speak the truth from your pulpits. Don’t let any inaccurate letters scare you away from urging your congregations to political action.6

Too many evangelicals have abdicated their right as individuals to freely express their political views that are grounded in biblical principles. It is time to retake that right!

RETAKE AMERICA

There are nearly 7 million evangelicals who did not vote in 2004. Off-year congressional elections have notoriously low voter turnout. Imagine the impact in the electoral process if all evangelicals voted!

Howard Dean says evangelicals must decide on whether we want to be tax-exempt or involved in politics and he is half right. We must decide if we want to be active in politics, but without the fear of our local church losing its tax-exempt status. I promise you if nearly 7 million new voters show up at polling stations this November, our choice will be heard loud and clear. If we cower in the corner and allow liberals to tell us how to serve Christ and our country, we will lose this great country. Not to mention the fact that we fail to live up to what we’ve been instructed to do...our relationship with Christ suffers when we don’t do His will.

If, however, we decide that we our going to back our pastors when they tell us what a godly candidate should stand for and to vote for such a candidate, without endorsing a particular individual, then we will have taken the “right ground” in politics of which Reverend Finney spoke. We will stand up to the fear tactics of the ungodly in this country and say, “Enough!”

Many evangelicals may fear that our country is too fargone and that their vote won’t matter. Nothing could be further from the truth! We can be culturally relevant and it starts in our communities, by reaching out with a loving and helping hand to our neighbors. It starts with our being involved in local politics, electing godly men and women to our school boards, and city and county governments. There is hope for us in this culture because of Whom we hope in. Charles Haddon Spurgeon wrote about the culturally active Christian, saying:

“If you wear the {covering} of Christ, you will find him so meek and lowly of heart that you will find rest unto your souls. He is the most magnanimous of captains. There never was his like the choicest of princes. He is always to be found in the thickest part of the battle. When the wind blows cold he always takes the bleak side of the hill. The heaviest end of the cross lies ever on His shoulders. If he bids us carry a burden, he carries it also.” — C.H. Spurgeon, The Statute of David for the Sharing of the Spoil, June 7, 1891

We are in a social civil war and we are losing because too many of us cannot “be found in the thickest part of the battle.” Too often “when the wind blows cold” in the form of opposition or ridicule,” the evangelical does not take “the bleak side of the hill,” but he or she runs from the hill. No more! I believe that Reverend Spurgeon would encourage each of us to follow Christ’s example and, like Him, “be found in the thickest part of the battle.”

One of my stated goals as a Sunday school teacher is to help my class develop a biblical worldview. Evangelicals have compartmentalized their Christianity to Church only. In some cases, only professing faith inside their homes. Sadly, even that is declining. We look at this cultural war as a series of little battlefields and miss “the forest for the trees.” It is time to develop a biblical worldview, one that allows us to see how each battle affects the overall fight. Francis Schaeffer wrote:

The basic problem of Christians in this country . . . in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals. They have very gradually become disturbed over permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion. But they have not seen this as a totality—each thing being a part, a symptom, of a much larger problem. They have failed to see that all of this has come about due to a shift in worldview—that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole. This shift has been away from a worldview that was at least vaguely Christian in people’s memory toward something completely different . . .7

As was stated in chapter 3, that “something completely different” is moral relativism. If this country is going to return to its former greatness, absolute truth must once again prevail. Again quoting Schaeffer:

True spirituality covers all of reality. There are things the Bible tells us as absolutes which are sinful—which do not conform to the character of God. But aside from these the Lordship of Christ covers all of life equally . . . Christianity is not just a series of truths but Truth—Truth about all of reality. And holding to that Truth intellectually brings forth not only certain personal results, but also certain governmental and legal results.8

I’m sure this will not provide comfort to atheists and those opposed to civically minded Christians, but the only hope for our country is the Truth.

We, as Americans, can return to our original JudeoChristian roots and still have freedom of religion and freedom that benefits all of society. If we continue down the path of moral relativism, allowing any and all behavior, this great nation will continue to crumble.

As an evangelical, I do desire that all come to Christ and that this country stand on biblical principles. As an American, I respect an individual’s right to worship or not worship our Heavenly Father. But to the atheist and liberal who fears Jesusland, a society that is grounded in biblical principles is one that is safe for all. It is a society that will look to the good of all and not let the driving force behind a decision be only personal and selfish gain. That is what it means to be “One Nation Under God.” It is fitting that we leave with one more quote from President Ronald Reagan, arguably the greatest president of the 20th Century and one of the greatest in American history:

All are free to believe or not to believe, all are free to practice a faith, or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.

Without God, there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience. Without God we are mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God there is a coarsening of the society. Without God democracy will not and cannot long endure. And that, simply, is the heart of my message: if we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Ronald Reagan

1Source: http://www.htconsult.com/Pledge.html

2 Source: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

3 Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

4 Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0420/p03s03-usmb.htm

5 Source: http://www.ctlibrary.com/34691

6 Source:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39617

7 Schaeffer, Francis. A Christian Manifesto. (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1981), pp. 17-18.

8 Ibid. 20

Epilogue

It is perhaps fitting that, as I write this epilogue, the date is July 4, 2006, exactly 230 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We are facing an important election in 126 days and we will elect a new president in a little over two years. I am asking those of you who call yourself evangelicals to start immediately “taking right ground” by first, registering to vote. Second, become familiar with your local politics, to include county and state officials. Third, encourage your pastor to preach about what a godly candidate should believe. Much of the media label elections “Decision Time” and it is indeed time to decide.

To the “moderate” who believes he or she can straddle the fence on issues, it is time to take a stand. Do not be persuaded by the prevailing mood of the country to decide how you will vote lest you become “like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind” (James 1:6). If you will allow it, moral clarity will show you the way.

To the liberal who despises the thought of America becoming “Jesusland,” understand that “we the people” believe in this country and its traditions, a country founded on biblical principles, regardless of how you want to rewrite our history. The proof is in our history, as David T. Moore writes:

Over a ten-year period, political science profes- sors at the University of Houston analyzed over 15,000 writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers to determine the primary source of ideas behind the Constitution. The three most quoted sources were the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone, and English philosopher John Locke. But the Bible was quoted more than any of these: four times more than Montesquieu, six times more often than Locke, and twelve times more than Blackstone. Ninety-four percent of the Founding Father’s quotes were quoted, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible.1

For all Americans, evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, liberal, conservative, moderate, apolitical; whomever you are, our country was founded on principles found in the Bible. We are a pros- perous nation not because of who we are as a people, but because we started as a nation 230 years ago believing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Declaration of Independence

The 56 signatories of the Declaration of Independence signed their names below the last sentence of the Declaration:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Declaration of Independence

Our freedom comes from God as does our protection. God expects us to stand in the gap for Him, and if neces- sary to die for freedom and the Truth, and that Truth is Jesus Christ.

PERSONAL DECISION

If somehow, as you’ve read this book, you’ve discovered that you don’t really know the Bible or you are interested in learning more, I encourage you to begin reading this precious book. I know that Christianity can seem intolerant of other religions, and if standing on the Truth makes me intolerant, then I am guilty as charged. But understand that it is not man who says that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that He is the only way to live our lives, and that He is the only truth there is. Jesus said that in John 14:6.

If you’ve never trusted Jesus for your salvation, won’t you do so now? Acknowledge to Him that you are a sinner, and it is that sin that has separated you from God. But the gospel, the good news, is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins so we can be reconciled to God and live with Him in eternity. All that is required of you is to repent, turn away, from your sinful lifestyle and to believe, to trust and commit your life to Jesus Christ. Confess your sin to Jesus; ask Him to forgive you of your sins, and to be the Lord of your life.

If you made that decision, I encourage you to find a local Bible-believing church, to read your Bible daily, and to seek God’s guidance in prayer. If you would like, I would love to hear about your decision. May God bless you and may He continue to bless America.

1Moore, David T. Five Lies of the Century. (Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1995), pp. 9-10.

Table of Contents

Title

Copyright

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Who are Evangelicals?

The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God

There Is Absolute Truth

Opposition to Abortion

No Same-Sex Marriage

Education

Economics

Foreign Affairs

Military

One Nation Under God