Daily Archives: February 10, 2019

February 10 Sensitivity to Sin

Scripture Reading: Numbers 22

Key Verse: Psalm 139:23

Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties.

In Numbers 22, we read how Balak, the Moabite king, sought to persuade Balaam to prophesy against Israel by offering the pagan prophet a significant sum of money to curse God’s chosen people.

God warned Balaam not to accept the offer. However, when Balak’s men showed up at his door with an extra-large sum of cash, temptation won out. Balaam went back to God to see if there was a chance He had changed His mind. The Lord gave Balaam permission to go, but was angry at him for not heeding His first command.

God knows the true motivation of our hearts. Balaam told the men he would go with them but could say only what God told him to say. Here’s the catch: Balaam wanted the money more than he wanted to do what was right. He knew God did not want him to go, but he was willing to risk everything in order to cash in on the situation.

Balaam’s donkey was the only thing that saved him from God’s wrath. She saw a mighty angel blocking their path and stopped. However, Balaam became so angry that he beat her.

The Spirit of God always reveals sin. However, we can choose to go against God’s warning by compromising our convictions. When this happens, we suffer in our disobedience. Ask the Lord to make you sensitive to sin. Pledge your devotion to Christ, and He will guard your life.

Dear God, make me sensitive to sin. Reveal the true motivations of my heart. I pledge my devotion to Christ. Let His power and truth guard me and direct my spiritual journey.[1]


[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 43). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

February 10 A Love for God’s Word

Scripture reading: Psalm 119:57–64

Key verse: 2 Timothy 2:15

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Paul’s final words to his understudy Timothy were words that God wants us to apply to our lives: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God.”

A part of becoming approved is learning how to flee from the temptations that keep you from becoming all that God has planned for you to be.

Immersing yourself in the study of His Word prepares you not only for the trials of life but also for the blessings that come your way. And God has many blessings stored up for those who walk in the light of His truth.

His Word is a road map, a framework, and a blueprint to life. Paul knew that regardless of what Timothy faced, as long as God’s Word was hidden within his heart, he could meet all challenges victoriously.

Becoming approved of God is not a work you perform. It requires the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Time spent in the study of God’s Word teaches you more about Christ’s personal love and desire for you. While He wants you to attend church, His greater joy comes in watching you study His Word and then apply it to your life.

Through the power of the Holy Spirit, God will teach you how to accurately handle His Word. If you are ready for a true adventure, pick up the Bible and ask God to breathe fresh life into your love for His Word.

Father, through the power of Your Holy Spirit, teach me how to handle Your Word. Breathe fresh life into my love for Your Word this day.[1]


[1] Stanley, C. F. (2000). Into His presence (p. 43). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Justice in All Its Parts: Responding to Thabiti Anyabwile – Part 2 — Reformation Charlotte

Justice in All Its Parts: Responding to Thabiti Anyabwile – Part 2

Before I wrap up my review of Anyabwile’s three posts on justice, I want to go back to where I left off on part 1. I ended that post with the following observations:

  • The lexical data is distorted by way of an inappropriate and inexcusable expansion of the semantic range of the words justice and righteousness.
  • Texts are lifted out of context, such as Zachaeus, and used illegitimately as a model. Peter nor Paul issued commandments around giving. It was always an appeal to the individual’s love for Christ and others.
  • The laws of the Mosaic Covenant are inappropriately applied to civil courts governing secular society. This is clearly a misapplication of the Old Testament text. The model is not far removed from theonomy and if one really wants to be consistent, it is theonomy. Why should we stop at these commands to Israel? Why not apply the commands of stoning as well?

Now, I want to move to Anyabwile’s third post on the subject (part 2 of Justice in All Its Parts). Anyabwile says the following, “But I’m trying to include in the definition not only a sense of outcomes (punishment or reward) but also a sense of well-being (restoration) and process.” Now, there is no question that in the ancient theocracy we call the nation of Israel, the old Mosaic covenant made legal provisions for those situations in which someone took advantage of another person. The offender was to restore what they took from the victim plus 20% and if the victim was no longer living, the restoration took place between the guilty and the victim’s next of kin. That is where it ended. I think anyone would dispute that even in our own culture, the laws are very similar, operation on similar principles. But one has to keep in mind, America is not a theocracy, nor is it a Christian nation. One of the mistakes modern Christians make is to think of American government like they think of Israel. They read these old laws and come up with this misguided idea that these laws ought to be implemented in American society. What is worse is that they seem to believe that one of the ways that church obeys these old laws is through political activism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The church needs to see ancient Rome when they see America, NOT ancient Israel.

Now we come to one of the most glaring problems with Anyabwile’s theology. Regarding distributive justice, Anyabwile says,

“A common simple way of defining distributive justice is “making sure everyone has their fair share.” Distributive justice does not require equality of possessions or outcomes. Nor is it simply defined as fitting the thing to be distributed to those who deserve it or are best for it. Neither is distributive justice a matter of everyone keeping what they’ve earned.”

Notice the beginning sentence and then the ending sentence of this paragraph. Distributive justice is making sure that people have their fair share and it is not a matter of everyone keeping what they’ve earned. Here is see the elements of Marxism creeping into Anyabwile’s theology. T concerns me that between these two very wrong sentences, Anyabwile includes at least one statement that is correct. It does not require equality of possessions or outcomes. But one has to wonder, in terms of possessions, what does he mean by “fitting the thing to be distributed to those who deserve it or are best for it?” The issue I have with Anyabwile and others is that they lace in language that is right with language that is far removed from the biblical concepts of justice OR mercy and this is confusing at best and could be interpreted as deceptive at worst. We would say that the one who deserves the paycheck is the one who did the work. The one who deserves the book is the one who purchased it with money he earned legally. And we would say that those who deserve it are the same as those who are best for it where the sense of justice is concerned.

SIDEBAR: 30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry; 31 But when he is found, he must repay sevenfold; He must give all the substance of his house. (Prov. 6:30-31) Those who are hungry are not viewed in Scripture as having a right to the possession of others. Not only this, justice mandates that if someone does this, there will be penalties. The mercy is seen in the fact that he is not hated like a typical thief would be because of his reason for stealing. Nevertheless, biblical justice does not let him off the hook. I say this because if we are not careful, mercy can impugn justice if balance is lost. These two principles must be kept in balance. A imbalanced view of justice can translate into a lack of mercy and an imbalanced view of mercy can translate into a lack of justice. Both of these situations remove us from godliness where these principles are involved.

Anyabwile calls on Deut. 15:11 to support his idea of distributive justice: “For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’ This text is preceded by a warning to those who are tended to be close up their compassion for their brother in need when the Sabbatic year approaches. This is because of the practice to release debts and such during this year. It should be pointed out that there is a distinction made between those who are brothers, fellow Israelites, and those who are not. This text is talking about a brother, not a foreigner. For theological purposes, a foreigner is for us, an unbeliever and a fellow Israelite would be considered a fellow believer. Not only this, the poor’s gaps were to be filled, not their wants. Don’t ask me to pay your cell phone bill, your cable bill, or any of these other American luxuries. We all have them. To fill gaps in luxury is not the biblical principle of mercy. To meet genuine needs, be they food, water, shelter, clothing. We lose sight of the fact that Scripture is talking about essentials for life! Luxuries we consider to be essentials is not the biblical principle.

“Another disturbing spin on the text takes place with Anyabwile’s use of Lev. 19:9-10: 9‘Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 ‘Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God.”

Now, Anyabwile says this about that text:  Leviticus 19:9-10 commands the people of Israel to redistribute by leaving gleanings in their fields at harvest time. To use the terminology of redistribution in this context is clearly misleading. Immediately, people will think that Scripture supports the socialist idea of the redistribution of wealth when Leviticus is teaching nothing of the sort. The text is instructing wealthy land owners to leave something behind for the poor. Do not let your greed choke out love for the misfortunate. For Anyabwile to use such terminology is irresponsible.

From Deuteronomy to Leviticus Mr. Anyabwile takes us into the New Testament to Ephesians and makes a second claim that the NT employs his view of distributive justice: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” Again, there is nothing in the semantic range of the words for justice or righteousness in the Old or New Testament that even hints at compassion, mercy, or charity.

Finally, Anyabwile asks what he calls the ‘key’ question: The key question with distributive justice is, “Does what I am seeking and calling ‘justice’ provide for the needs of the vulnerable?” notice that up to this point, Anyabwile has done nothing from an exetetical standpoint to justify his definition of distributive justice. He gave us his own definition for an expression that appears nowhere in Scripture. There is no biblical reference to distributive justice. There is no lexical data to justify attaching the meaning to the term as Anyabwile does. He makes the term up out of thin air, take his modern, newly invented expression, and imports it into the biblical text, waves his eisgetical magic wand and magically, we have a new concept that all Christians are now obligated to understand and practice.

In his conclusion, Anyabwile makes the following observation and application:

“We cannot hope to “do justice” as the Bible commands without understanding the various aspects of justice. We must keep an eye on outcomes as well as process. We must be concerned with justice not only in legal and political matters but also in personal and business dealings. The biblical notion of justice aims at our entire life. We cannot delegate it or diminish it to only one aspect.”

Notice that Anyabwile uses the first-person plural pronoun four times. We have to accept his various aspects of justice if we are to do justice. We have to keep an eye on the outcomes. What outcomes? If you read this paragraph rightly, you will feel the weight of responsibility on the part of the church for policing the civil authorities. We are responsible for taking the principles of the ancient theocracy and making sure they are carried out in American society; in politics, in foreign policy, and in business practices. This is how “we” in the church do justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion then it follows that Anywabile’s interpretation of these passages in support of his concept of justice is seriously flawed. If the lack of any lexical data to support his view of distributive justice wasn’t bad enough, he also illegitimately and arbitrarily I might add, expands the semantic range of the very words he is attempting to use as his grounding for his argument. Not only that, his obvious ignoring of the context in which these passages appears witnesses against his argument, not for it. And finally, in the grand scheme of things, it is simply not the case that the NT Church is called to impose the old laws of the ancient theocracy on American society or any other society as far as that goes. The Christian community takes care of her own widows in accordance with Paul’s criteria in 1 Tim. 5:1-16. The same holds for caring for our orphans. If you are interested in a little more detail and a more biblical perspective in its proper context, I would encourage you to listen to my podcast here: The Reformed Rant – Biblical Justice vs Social Justice.

via Justice in All Its Parts: Responding to Thabiti Anyabwile – Part 2 — Reformation Charlotte

Black Conservative Candace Owens Unloads On Chelsea Clinton In Epic Fight

Black conservative commentator Candace Owens got into a heated fight with former first daughter Chelsea Clinton on Twitter this weekend.

“I actually don’t have any problems at all with the word ‘nationalism.’ I think that it gets, the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want,” Owens said at the conference.

“So when you think about, whenever we say ‘nationalism,’ the first thing people thing about, at least in America, is Hitler,” she said. “You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay fine.”

“The problem is … he had dreams outside of Germany,” she said. “He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German. Everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. … To me that’s not nationalism.”

Clinton started the battle by speaking about what Owens said about Hitler at a Talking Points USA conference.

“Hitler’s ‘make Germany great’ included more than 400 regulations that stripped German Jews of their ability to work, go to school, vote, own property, seek care in public hospitals & enter ‘Aryan’ zones. All before the Holocaust. In 1943, Germany celebrated being ‘free of Jews,’” Clinton said.

https://t.co/HDfUcCuWo9

A man named Andrew Martin fired back at her by saying he was offended by the Hitler and President Donald Trump comparison.

“I know you are trying to make a Trump/Hitler connection. I find it extremely offensive. Open a book and read what Hitler REALLY did. You are offending Jews that lived through the holocaust. You are offending soldiers that freed them. Find a legitimate cause!” he said.

I know you are trying to make a Trump/Hitler connection. I find it extremely offensive. Open a book and read what Hitler REALLY did. You are offending Jews that lived through the holocaust. You are offending soldiers that freed them. Find a legitimate cause!

— Andrew Martin (@MeetTheUnrealMe) February 8, 2019

“Good afternoon Andrew – Ignorance about Hitler’s evil regime must always be confronted. That burden should not fall on Holocaust survivors. There was nothing, using @RealCandaceO own words, “great” about the Third Reich before it began annexing & invading its neighbors,” Clinton shot back.

https://t.co/Pq8vdtirly

Then Owens got involved to defend herself and she took the gloves off and went for the jugular.

“Chelsea, The audacity of this tweet. If you want to discuss evil regimes, look no further than you racist parents.

“Haiti still remembers what you stole from them.

“Black America remembers that your father locked up more black men than any president in the history of the USA,” she said.

Chelsea,

The audacity of this tweet. If you want to discuss evil regimes, look no further than you racist parents.

Haiti still remembers what you stole from them.
Black America remembers that your father locked up more black men than any president in the history of the USA. https://t.co/6OOl4S8OK9

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) February 8, 2019

“Evil regimes and the slaughtering of millions was BEST executed by Margaret Sanger, who your RACIST mother idolizes.

“When you have an excuse for the 19 million black babies that have been aborted due to her theory of eugenics— tweet at me,” Owens said.

https://t.co/6OOl4S8OK9

“Don’t you ever in your miserable life have the audacity to tweet at someone who educating blacks on the nasty, racist, harmful “evil regime” policies inflicted by your soulless mother and father.

“There will be a #BLEXIT. And your trash parents will be alive to witness it,” she said.

https://t.co/6OOl4S8OK9

“You don’t get to separate yourself from the HORRORS your parents inflicted worldwide through the Clinton Foundation.

“You were on payroll.

“But wishing you a life full of love, health, and—of course, happiness #LockHerUp,” Owens said.

https://t.co/GSeX8NJUPj

“Thank you @USATODAY for publishing the FULL quote & context of what I said.

“We are all holding to see if @ChelseaClinton will apologize for perpetuating this leftist media hoax.

“Similar to #Covington, this hoax has resulted in death threats against me,” she said.

https://t.co/3VEAkX23nx

Source: Black Conservative Candace Owens Unloads On Chelsea Clinton In Epic Fight

THE GOSPEL COALITION AND THE ANTI- GOP POLITICS OF TOMORROW — thirtypiecesofsilverdotorg

HOW THE “NEVER TRUMPERS” WILL NUANCE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN POLITICS IN THE RUN UP TO 2020.

Rev Thomas Littleton                                                                                                2/10/2019

During the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas as Vice President 9MARKS editor and council member of the  ERLC Jonathan Leeman tweeted out his displeasure over the SBC invitation to the Vice President of the United States Mike Pence. Leeman quickly penned an article about his feelings which was published by TGC here . https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/truth-power-pence-sbc/                                     “I’m sitting here at the Southern Baptist Convention. Earlier today Vice President Mike Pence addressed the convention. We were told he initiated the offer to speak. I wish we had not accepted.” He goes on to give his “four reasons why ” while acknowledging that TGC (ERLC for that matter ) justify their own invitations to politicians to speak.

Leeman wrote another article on the reasons why he thought inviting the Vice President to Speak at the SBC meetings in Dallas 2018 was” Controversial” which was published in The Washington Post ,a favorite outlet of progressive political voices in the SBC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/14/why-the-southern-baptist-convention-shouldnt-have-allowed-mike-pence-to-speak/?utm_term=.e9643d3a488a

Leeman says “Permit me to remain neutral on Pence himself. Whether you love or hate him, reason one our churches and associations of churches should ordinarily not receive political leaders to address their assemblies is that it goes against the pattern of the entire Bible. You never see Jesus asking the Roman centurion to make an appearance at his next speaking event to “share a word from his heart,” even after the centurion proved to have “great faith.” No, Jesus had a different mission. He taught us to keep church and state separate.”

Leeman’s use of the interaction – or fictional non interaction – between Jesus and the Roman centurion is hardly a contextual one for the TGC expository hardliners.

HILLARY CLINTON INVITED TO SBC BY RUSSELL MOORE IN 2015

There was no outcry when ERLC head Russell Moore invited Hillary Clinton(who did not accept the invitation ) to the SBC 2015 meetings as reported in this TGC 2018 article. The pushback appears to be over office holders or candidates from the GOP being invited .

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/politicians-speaking-southern-baptist-annual-meeting-brief-history/

” In spite of his Baptist background, Bill Clinton never addressed the SBC. George W. Bush addressed the SBC in 2002. President Obama never addressed the SBC. It was not hard to see a pattern that had developed. In spite of SBC leaders’ routine insistence that the convention was and is not affiliated with any political party, the SBC had become firmly aligned with the GOP. (Russell Moore did invite Hillary Clinton to speak at an ERLC forum in 2015, but she declined.)”

LEEMAN’S UNKNOWN BACKGROUND AND THIRD WAY MESSAGE INCLUDING PRO-LIFE

In an interview from the 9MARKS meetings at the same SBC 2018 meetings,  Leeman discussed his book with a group of SBC pastors who got a heavy dose of nuancing on the problems of being a “single issue (pro-life) voter “. In the interview Dever boasted in the Q &A that Leeman holds a Masters degree from London School of Economics. This fact is not part of Leeman’s biographies on TGC/ ERLC/ 9MARKS or other organizations Leeman works with. When recently asked about this omission he responded that the did not want it to seem boastful. Problems with the influences from liberal globalist politics and economics as well as the Fabian Socialist founding of LSE make non disclosure problematic by an influential member of the SBC writing books , teaching, working in our Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission ,and on a national tour promoting “Rethinking” our political engagement . More on this issue and the nuancing of the pro life discussion with Mark Dever is discussed in the link below .

https://thirtypiecesofsilver.org/2018/11/17/9marks-dever-and-fabian-socialist-trained-editor-how-to-ditch-your-pro-life-voting-habit/

LEEMAN WILL NOT ANSWER A QUESTION HIS PAST EMPLOYMENT

On January 22nd of 2019 this author asked Jonathan Leeman if he would identify the name of a global economics magazine he worked as an editor for in DC which is included but NOT NAMED in his bio . Leeman responded -showing displeasure – but would not answer.

“Jonathan . Hello we spoke on twitter. I have your book “How the Nations Rage” and am finishing it soon. I saw in your bio  that you ” worked as an editor for an international economics magazine in Washington, D. C. ” Would you say which publication. Thanks . Thomas”

Response – “Thomas, Forgive me for adopting a severe tone, but I’m not sure why you would expect me to trust you…. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, the best I can say is, you maligned me in your first article in sincere ignorance (not that I understand why one Christian would ever malign another w/o due diligence; non-Christian reporters do better). But for you to continue as you’ve begun, having been corrected several times, is for you to choose deception. Let me encourage you to take a better route”

– Leeman would not disclose the name of the publication while he accuses the author of “choosing deception” . In the same way he does not disclose his London School of Economics political education in his biography . He does discuss the LSE background briefly in this interview . https://www.bhacademicblog.com/an-interview-with-jonathan-leeman-on-baptist-foundations/

TGC 2019 LECTURES ON “THINKING IN PUBLIC” WITH ALBERT MOHLER “RETHINKING FAITH AND POLITICS ” FROM LEEMANS BOOK

http://www.sbts.edu/tgc/

“Join us for a live recording of Thinking in Public with Albert Mohler and Jonathan Leeman. Each attendee will receive a Southern Seminary mug and be entered to win a library of 100 books from Southern Seminary faculty.”

JONATHAN LEEMAN’S APPROACH TO RETHINKING FAITH AND POLITICS STRIKES A DISTINCT THIRDY WAY TONE ADVOCATING CHRISTIANS HAVE A “POLITICAL REBOOT”

“Religious liberty feels in jeopardy today, as cultural power brokers grow ever more suspicious of Christianity. Meanwhile, Christians cannot agree with one another politically. Some want to strengthen the evangelical voting bloc. Others advise focusing on social-justice causes. Still others would leave the public square to get on with the so-called spiritual work of the church. Prominent Christian leaders criticize one another in the news. Members of church small groups find themselves divided and angry. Clearly, Christians in America need a political reboot.”

“Jonathan Leeman, a scholar of political theology who has taught at various seminaries, believes this restart begins in local churches. Before we can truly do good and do justice, we need to be a good and just people. We cannot talk with integrity about family values if our marriages are falling apart. Or advocate for tax policy changes if we’re not being generous with fellow believers. The restart needed is conversion. Conversion makes us first citizens of Christ’s kingdom and then puts us to work as ambassadors to the world. Our focus must shift from redeeming the nation to living as a redeemed nation. Only when we realize that the life of our churches now is the hope of the nation tomorrow will we be the salt and light Jesus calls us to be.”

LEEMANS BOOK IS ENDORSED BY SOME OF TGC’s LEADING “RETHINKERS” WHO CITE ITS ALTERNATIVE TONE

https://www.thomasnelson.com/p/how-the-nations-rage/

ENDORSEMENTS of “How the Nations Rage ”

“What has the church to do with politics? Is there a proper, biblically informed relationship between church and state? In How the Nations Rage, Leeman exhorts the church neither to withdraw from nor to dominate the political sphere, but to represent heaven to a world in turmoil. What timely counsel, especially to the American church! This work is highly accessible and deserving of praise.”

– John MacArthur, Pastor Grace Community Church Sun Valley California 

 

“The last 20 years, evangelical Christians have been politically mobilized in an outpouring of moral concern and political engagement. Is this a good development? To what extent should Christians be involved in the political process? In his new book, How the Nations Rage, Jonathan Leeman provides a careful and theologically compelling treatment of the relationship between faith and politics. This book is an urgently needed resource for Christians seeking to faithfully integrate their Christian commitments with their political engagement. Leeman is careful, cogent, and unflinchingly biblical in his presentation. This book deserves careful consideration by any Christian who seeks to walk faithfully in the public square.”

– R. Albert Mohler President of SBTS 

RACIALLY FOCUSED AND SOCIAL JUSTICE PROMOTER TISBY GIVES HARDY AND INSIGHTFUL TAKE ON THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS -“SQUIRMING ”

Jonathan Leeman’s How the Nations Rage contains truths that will make any Christian—Republican, Democrat, Independent or otherwise—squirm, and that’s what makes it worthwhile. In this time of political polarization, Leeman offers an opportunity for people to step back from the headlines and the harangues to re-evaluate what it means to represent Christ in the public square and one’s local community. If read carefully, How the Nations Rage, can smooth some of the sharp edges of our current political discourse and move people of faith toward being truth tellers and peacemakers instead of mere partisans.”

– Jemar Tisby, President, The Witness, a Black Christian Collective; Co-Host, “Pass The Mic” podcast 

 FELLOW ERLC COUNCIL MEMBER AND FRINGE ACTIVIST GIVES A

“These are fraught political times, both inside and outside the church. The “culture wars” model of the previous century has proven inadequate in addressing the polarization of our current social climate. How the Nations Rage provides a more mature, deeply biblical, and much needed pastoral understanding of the relationship between the church and the public square. In these pages, Leeman balances correction and encouragement, as well as principle and wisdom.”

– Karen Swallow Prior, author of Booked: Literature in the Soul of Me and Fierce Convictions–The Extraordinary Life of Hannah More: Poet, Reformer Abolitionist

RUSSELL MOORE’S LEYLAND HOUSE CREW IN DC INTERVIEW LEEMAN AT MIDTERMS

ERLC November 2018

https://erlc.com/resource-library/capitol-conversations-episodes/how-the-nations-rage-with-jonathan-leeman

“Christians are rethinking their relationship with politics as American culture moves away from certain moral Christian principles. Jonathan Leeman, author of How The Nations Rage, joins Steven, Travis, and Jeff at the Leland House to talk about the church, the state, and how to have confidence in this divided age. From the conversation:”

“What I’m trying to help readers do is to understand what is the state, what is the church, how to read the bible politically, what is justice, and perhaps most importantly, envigorate, encourage, and inspire with a vision of the the church as this embassy of light, of justice and righteousness that shows a model to the nations of how we can move forward with a happy confidence of what God is doing, whether America gets better or worse.” – Jonathan Leeman

CONCLUSION

GET READY FOR TGCs TOUR OF THE NEVER TRUMPERS HIP HOP /SOCK HOP FOR YOUNG AND OLD.

Leeman’s book offers a rambling set of perspective enabling stories that cover a range of conflicted souls on their own journeys .The emotional discussion is laid out for Christians on the usual divisive topics  like” finding  solutions ” for modern positions on age old divisive issues between Christians and culture like abortion, homosexuality, race etc.etc.etc.

The answers provided , though presented most often in theological terms ,certainly bear the greater, more defined marks of the authors political philosophy training and underlying disdain for classic conservative Christian political views. The discussion projects an assumed political spirituality and political /theological mixture including and espousing a mangled sort of collectivist thinking about Christian faith in the public square, a submission to authority that is requisite for both salvation and healthy identity for the believer .

Knowing some of Leeman’s other work on “Church Discipline”, pastoral and elder authority and the SBC 9MARKS review on the book focusing on “a plurality of elders” as the answer for the poor little lost Christian in Leeman’s world view creates some doubts. This author was made to feel as though we are being primed to not feel confident about living out our own “deeply held religious convictions ”  in the public square or in the voting booth. There is an unsettling notion indicating we will by some forces of natural and divine law be compelled to look to Leeman and TGC leaders like Moore/ Mohler / Keller/ Macarthur ….and dare we think it Karen Swallow Prior -for guidance on how to live and vote in the future.

Leeman’s book ends with several quotes in the last chapter from the current ERLC  favorite social justice and wealth redistribution warrior John Perkins His final quote in the book is from Perkins “True justice is wrapped up in love” .They are “intimately tied together “.

TGC /ERLC ARE FORCING THE CREATION OF A SOCIAL JUSTICE VOTER BLOCK

Leeman certainly intends his approach and the answers he provides to be or appear to be “heart-felt” and “Justice Driven ” . He frames his final thoughts in a “more robust practice of justice ”  and goes on to offer comments on “Love of Nation” and “Hope for the Nation”. In reality TGCs broader political narrative ,of which Leeman is a part, insist we must reconsider how deeply harmful our evangelical identity is to the Gospel. Christians who stand for conservative faith and family values about  abortion, gay marriage, secure borders, holding candidates and one another accountable are somehow suddenly so egregious and inflammatory that we should disown our identity and redefine ourselves. Otherwise the risk is to lose the hope of gaining the culture by acclimating to it . The harsh light of history and pure light of Scripture soundly disprove these foolish notions. We impact our world be being salt and light in it.

Matthew 5:13-16

Believers Are Salt and Light

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 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. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

A REALLY BIG MESS – THE TRUE POLITICAL OVERHAUL – LEEMAN/ MOHLER/ PRIOR ARE ADVOCATING

The most compelling  part of Leeman’s discussion of his approach is in considering the outcome of his efforts in light of the word picture he paints for it. In his zero budget/ deconstructionist approach Leeman likens Joe Christian as having a big pot of stew containing chunks of meat and carrots and potatoes already in it. Leeman insist all these contents must be removed and seems to thoughtlessly suggest we ” dump it all out on the counter ” and “Start over” with just the approved- justified essentials allowed back in. All this author could see in this word picture or envision in the coming TGC / ERLC effort to force this political  RETHINK is the mess it is going to make. A picture of a young Leeman and the boyish looking Russell Moore  and kid sister Karen Swallow Prior – playing in the kitchen – under the watchful eye of big brothers Mohler and MacArthur and instigator middle child Mark Dever urging them on as the mess is made. These look to have ZERO consideration in their efforts for the mess OR they have the full assumption that someone else will have to clean it up. Wait until mom gets home – or the people in the pew who have already had enough Obamanomics and social justice policy. They are happy with their own STEW and voting decisions thank you very much.

Jonathan is quoting Perkins to sound like this effort is driven by love -while he should be looking at the fact that Truth is as important as Love and being motivated by BOTH is essential. “The Nations Raging TGC/ ERLC tour ” is on  and already going national . BUT-   Let’s get real TGC/ ERLC guys -the motivation here is political not spiritual.

Ephesians 4:12-16   (NKJV)

12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the [a]edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

via THE GOSPEL COALITION AND THE ANTI- GOP POLITICS OF TOMORROW — thirtypiecesofsilverdotorg

Defining “Social Justice” — Triablogue

I’ve watched most of the videos from the recent G3 conference, but this one, “Defining Social Justice” by Dr. Voddie Baucham was clearly the best. “I do not think [that phrase, ‘social justice’] means what you think it means”, he says. “The biggest problem with the terminology ‘social justice’ is that it doesn’t mean what we think it means”.

“Those who have decided to go ahead and use the terminology, they want first for the terminology to be understood according to their [own] intentions”.

He unpacks the term in a variety of ways.

“The biggest problem with the term ‘social justice’”, he said, “is that there is a ‘social justice’ ‘movement’ and that ‘movement’ has a ‘mission’.” It is a mission that is not consonant with Biblical Christianity.

He cites this article from Kevin DeYoung: Is Social Justice a Gospel Issue? — in which DeYoung clearly seems to miss the boat on what he is talking about.

The primary division, according to Dr. Baucham, is whether “justice” is being intended at an individual level (wherein God Himself works for justice for individuals) or for “groups” (and this is where the modifier “justice” comes into play – in the sense that “social” justice requires an arbiter – usually the state – to provide “justice” not for individuals, but for aggrieved “groups” (in the Marxist “oppressor/oppressed” paradigm).

The larger point is, we need to understand what our political opponents are talking about, specifically in the form of the language they use. Because those individuals who ought to be on our side, unwittingly find themselves advocating things that they normally would not advocate, if it were the case that they actually knew that they were using what I’ll call here, pre-loaded terminology.

As an analogy for this kind of confusion, one of the most frequently confused terms, I think, involves the various uses of “begging the question”. In a world that has some intelligent interactions with philosophy, “begging the question” is a technical term that means “petitio principii”, essentially using the premises of an argument to define its conclusion. However, at a more popular level, many people use that phrase in the sense that what has come to mean “raises a question” or “invites a question to be asked”. But for philosophers and those speaking in the philosophical sense, it decidedly does not mean that.

In the case of the term “social justice”, its usage by Christians is problematic, because, first, God demands justice. Injustice is sin. So if ‘social justice’ is truly justice, then disagreement is sin.

But that is not the case at all. As Dr. Baucham points out, the “social justice” movement is not about Biblical, Godly justice.

In short, the mission of the “social justice” movement sees its mission as one to facilitate “state distribution of advantages and resources to disadvantaged groups to satisfy their right to social and economic equality”

So as it is used on the left, the “social justice movement” is about societal (governmental) redistribution of virtually everything in society – not only goods and services, but all kinds of “advantages and resources”, including such things as access to education (through “affirmative action” programs), “reparations” for “slavery”, even such intangibles as prestige, ideology (weighted through “intersectionality” to provide advantages to those who can claim the most “oppression” in terms of the number of “oppressed groups” that they can claim membership in) and on and on.

So for “the political left”, the phrase “social justice” connotes their own use of the term with all the “Critical Theory” espoused by the “Frankfurt School”, otherwise known for its “Cultural Marxism” and the “Intersectionality” that goes along with it.

When Christians ask “is social justice a Gospel issue”, the phrase “social justice” does not imply actual justice. It is a “technical term”, a “code word” or even, say, a “dog whistle” for something far more well-defined and far more insidious.

Neil Shenvi has provided some helpful quotes from leading thinkers on the political left, illustrating how and why this is so.

We must not be afraid to confront our political opponents “on their own terms” and “in their own terms”. But we must also not be afraid to call a thing what it is, to say what it really is.

via Defining “Social Justice” — Triablogue

“Progressive” Attacks On Capitalism Were Key To Hitler’s Success — ZeroHedge News

Authored by Ludwig von Mises via The Mises Institute,

The following, written in 1940, is excerpted from Interventionism, An Economic Analysis, which was originally part of Nationaloekonomie, the German predecessor to Human Action.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini constantly proclaim that they are chosen by destiny to bring salvation to this world. They claim they are the leaders of the creative youth who fight against their outlived elders. They bring from the East the new culture which is to replace the dying Western civilization. They want to give the coup de grace to liberalism and capitalism; they want to overcome immoral egoism by altruism; they plan to replace the anarchic democracy by order and organization, the society of “classes” by the total state, the market economy by socialism. Their war is not a war for territorial expansion, for loot and hegemony like the imperialistic wars of the past, but a holy crusade for a better world to live in. And they feel certain of their victory because they are convinced that they are borne by “the wave of the future.”

It is a law of nature, they say, that great historic changes cannot take place peacefully or without conflict. It would be petty and stupid, they contend, to overlook the creative quality of their work because of some unpleasantness which the great world revolution must necessarily bring with it. They maintain one should not overlook the glory of the new gospel because of ill-placed pity for Jews and Masons, Poles and Czechs, Finns and Greeks, the decadent English aristocracy and the corrupt French bourgeoisie. Such softness and such blindness for the new standards of morality prove only the decadence of the dying capitalistic pseudo-culture. The whining and crying of impotent old men, they say, is futile; it will not stop the victorious advance of youth. No one can stop the wheel of history, or turn back the clock of time.

The success of this propaganda is overwhelming. People do not consider the content of alleged new gospel; they merely understand that it is new and believe to see in this fact its justification. As women welcome a new style in clothes just to have a change, so the supposedly new style in politics and economics is welcomed. People hasten to exchange their “old” ideas for “new” ones, because they fear to appear old-fashioned and reactionary. They join the chorus decrying the shortcomings of the capitalistic civilization and speak in elated enthusiasm of the achievements of the autocrats. Nothing is today more fashionable than slandering Western civilization.

This mentality has made it easy for Hitler to gain his victories. The Czechs and the Danes capitulated without a fight. Norwegian officers handed over large sections of their country to Hitler’s army. The Dutch and the Belgians gave in after only a short resistance. The French had the audacity to celebrate the destruction of their independence as a “national revival.” It took Hitler five years to effect the Anschluss of Austria; two-and-one-half years later he was master of the European continent.

Hitler does not have a new secret weapon at his disposal. He does not owe his victory to an excellent intelligence service which informs him of the plans of his opponents. Even the much-talked-of “fifth column” was not decisive. He won because the supposed opponents were already quite sympathetic to the ideas for which he stood.

Only those who unconditionally and unrestrictedly consider the market economy as the only workable form of social cooperation are opponents of the totalitarian systems and are capable of fighting them successfully. Those who want socialism intend to bring to their country the system which Russia and Germany enjoy. To favor interventionism means to enter a road which inevitably leads to socialism.

An ideological struggle cannot be fought successfully with constant concessions to the principles of the enemy. Those who refute capitalism because it supposedly is inimical to the interest of the masses, those who proclaim “as a matter of course” that after the victory over Hitler the market economy will have to be replaced by a better system and, therefore, everything should be done now to make the government control of business as complete as possible, are actually fighting for totalitarianism. The “progressives” who today masquerade as “liberals” may rant against “fascism”; yet it is their policy that paves the way for Hitlerism.

Nothing could have been more helpful to the success of the National-Socialist (Nazi) movement than the methods used by the “progressives,” denouncing Nazism as a party serving the interests of “capital.” The German workers knew this tactic too well to be deceived by it again.

Was it not true that, since the seventies of the last century, the ostensibly pro-labor Social-Democrats had fought all the pro-labor measures of the German government vigorously, calling them “bourgeois” and injurious to the interests of the working class?

The Social-Democrats had consistently voted against the nationalization of the railroads, the municipalizationof the public utilities, labor legislation, and compulsory accident, sickness, and old-age insurance, the German social security system which was adopted later throughout the world. Then after the war [World War l] the Communists branded the German Social-Democratic party and the Social-Democratic unions as “traitors to their class.” So the German workers realized that every party wooing them called the competing parties “willing servants of capitalism,” and their allegiance to Nazism would not be shattered by such phrases.

Unless we are utterly oblivious to the facts, we must realize that the German workers are the most reliable supporters of the Hitler regime. Nazism has won them over completely by eliminating unemployment and by reducing the entrepreneurs to the status of shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer). Big business, shopkeepers, and peasants are disappointed. Labor is well satisfied and will stand by Hitler, unless the war takes a turn which would destroy their hope for a better life after the peace treaty. Only military reverses can deprive Hitler of the backing of the German workers.

The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do.

What pernicious effects may be produced by believing that the German workers are opposed to Hitler was proved by the English tactics during the first year of the war. The government of Neville Chamberlain firmly believed that the war would be brought to an end by a revolution of the German workers. Instead of concentrating on vigorous arming and fighting, they had their planes drop leaflets over Germany telling the German workers that England was not fighting this war against them, but against their oppressor, Hitler. The English government knew very well, they said, that the German people, particularly labor, were against war and were only forced into it by their self-imposed dictator.

The workers in the Anglo-Saxon countries, too, knew that the socialist parties competing for their favor usually accused each other of favoring capitalism. Communists of all shades advance this accusation against socialists. And within the Communist groups the Trotskyites used this same argument against Stalin and his men. And vice versa. The fact that the “progressives” bring the same accusation against Nazism and Fascism will not prevent labor some day from following another gang wearing shirts of a different color.

What is wrong with Western civilization is the accepted habit of judging political parties merely by asking whether they seem new and radical enough, not by analyzing whether they are wise or unwise, or whether they are apt to achieve their aims. Not everything that exists today is reasonable; but this does not mean that everything that does not exist is sensible.

The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is “left” and what is “right”? Why should Hitler be “right” and Stalin, his temporary friend, be “left”? Who is “reactionary” and who is “progressive”? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. “Orthodoxy” is not an evil if the doctrine on which the “orthodox” stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is “nationalist,” those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?

What would have happened to Western civilization if its peoples had always shown such liking for the “new”? Suppose they had welcomed as “the wave of the future” Attila and his Huns, the creed of Mohammed, or the Tartars? They, too, were totalitarian and had military successes to their credit which made the weak hesitate and ready to capitulate. What mankind needs today is liberation from the rule of nonsensical slogans and a return to sound reasoning.

Source: “Progressive” Attacks On Capitalism Were Key To Hitler’s Success

Trump’s wild popularity overseas is one of media’s best kept secrets — American Thinker Blog

World-famous Italian festival parade that features giant ‘God-Emperor Trump’ is only the latest example. Not just a hero, a superhero!

The mainstream media pretends that their scorn for President Trump is almost universally shared overseas. While globalists everywhere (along with their media allies) dislike him for standing up for national sovereignty, a rising tide of populist revolt is shaking them to their core. And Trump is a hero – even a superhero – to the growing number of anti-globalist populists around the world.

Stark evidence of this popularity of President Trump comes from Italy, where a populist government won power – though the media tend to ignore this. The Carnival of Viareggio, described as “world-famous” by Medium.com (the website chosen by Jeff Bezos for his j’accuse manifesto against the National Enquirer) dates back to 1873, and has established itself as the venue for featuring amazing giant figures. It takes place in Tuscany, a wealthy area that is a magnet for tourists worldwide.

Check out the highlight of yesterday’s parade:

Source: Twitter

Don’t you love the Twitter sword that he carries?

There was at least one individual who picked up the theme in the parade:

Source: Twitter video screen grab

Most delightful of all: This crowd transferred their love of President Trump into love for America.

Source Twitter video screen grab

According to Bizpacreview, the representation of Trump has acquired a nickname, God-Emperor Trump.”

Trump’s supporters here in the states have dubbed this caricature “God Emperor Trump” because of its uncanny resemblance to the “God-Emperor of Mankind,” a character in the popular tabletop fantasy wargame Warhammer 40,000.

“The Emperor of Mankind is the immortal Perpetual who serves as the ruling monarch of the Imperium of Man, and is described by the Imperial Ecclesiarchy and the Imperial Cult as the Father, Guardian and God of humanity,” a Wikia fan page notes.

And this “Father, Guardian and God of humanity” looks just like the Italians’ caricature of Trump.

Looks pretty spot on to me:

Source: Twitter

Of course, this is but the latest evidence that President Trump is inspiring people all over the world. My colleague Monica Showalter offers these examples that are shunned by our lying media:

  • Thousands in England chant “We want Trump”

The globalists realize that this is a worldwide phenomenon, one directed squarely at them and the transition they have wright on countries everywhere. The last thing they want is for Americans to understand that President Trump is THE global leader of a populist movement that is growing, is pro-America, and has already toppled statist governments

The mainstream media pretends that their scorn for President Trump is almost universally shared overseas. While globalists everywhere (along with their media allies) dislike him for standing up for national sovereignty, a rising tide of populist revolt is shaking them to their core. And Trump is a hero – even a superhero – to the growing number of anti-globalist populists around the world.

Stark evidence of this popularity of President Trump comes from Italy, where a populist government won power – though the media tend to ignore this. The Carnival of Viareggio, described as “world-famous” by Medium.com (the website chosen by Jeff Bezos for his j’accuse manifesto against the National Enquirer) dates back to 1873, and has established itself as the venue for featuring amazing giant figures. It takes place in Tuscany, a wealthy area that is a magnet for tourists worldwide.

Check out the highlight of yesterday’s parade:

Source: Twitter

Don’t you love the Twitter sword that he carries?

There was at least one individual who picked up the theme in the parade:

Source: Twitter video screen grab

Most delightful of all: This crowd transferred their love of President Trump into love for America.

Source Twitter video screen grab

According to Bizpacreview, the representation of Trump has acquired a nickname, God-Emperor Trump.”

Trump’s supporters here in the states have dubbed this caricature “God Emperor Trump” because of its uncanny resemblance to the “God-Emperor of Mankind,” a character in the popular tabletop fantasy wargame Warhammer 40,000.

“The Emperor of Mankind is the immortal Perpetual who serves as the ruling monarch of the Imperium of Man, and is described by the Imperial Ecclesiarchy and the Imperial Cult as the Father, Guardian and God of humanity,” a Wikia fan page notes.

And this “Father, Guardian and God of humanity” looks just like the Italians’ caricature of Trump.

Looks pretty spot on to me:

Source: Twitter

Of course, this is but the latest evidence that President Trump is inspiring people all over the world. My colleague Monica Showalter offers these examples that are shunned by our lying media:

  • Thousands in England chant “We want Trump”

The globalists realize that this is a worldwide phenomenon, one directed squarely at them and the transition they have wright on countries everywhere. The last thing they want is for Americans to understand that President Trump is THE global leader of a populist movement that is growing, is pro-America, and has already toppled statist governments

Source: Trump’s wild popularity overseas is one of media’s best kept secrets

Five Million Migrants from Latin America Plan to Relocate to US in Next 12 Months – One-Fifth of El Salvador Already Lives Here — The Gateway Pundit

According to Gallup five million third world migrants from Latin America to the United States in the next 12 months.

Breitbart.com reported:

Five million Latin Americans plan to migrate to the United States in the next 12 months, and an estimated 42 million more say they want to enter the country.

Those statistics were in a report from Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO at Gallup:

Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make the move. This suggests that open borders could potentially attract 42 million Latin Americans. A full 5 million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S.

There currently are at least 1.1 million Salvadoran immigrants in the United States.

The number represents about one-fifth (19.1 percent) of the total population of El Salvador (5.7 million in 2007 according to the Salvadoran Department of Statistics and Censuses).


(Migration Policy map)

via Five Million Migrants from Latin America Plan to Relocate to US in Next 12 Months – One-Fifth of El Salvador Already Lives Here — The Gateway Pundit