Daily Archives: March 23, 2019

March 23 When Things Go Wrong

Scripture Reading: James 1:1–4

Key Verse: Matthew 6:34

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

Have you ever heard the expression “hitting the wall”? It sounds painful, doesn’t it? “The wall” is sometimes used among individuals who have recently begun a new athletic endeavor, most often jogging. Symptoms include a racing heart rate, perspiration pouring down, and lungs gasping for breath in loud, painful inhalations. For new runners, this is the point at which one simply cannot go another step.

After experiencing this sensation, many people give up running. After all, exercise is supposed to make you feel good, right? The problem for these new runners is that they have not yet reached the point of physical endurance. This is what enables runners to continually grow stronger and better able to jog farther each day. Endurance is the result of determination, discipline, and the willingness to suffer in order to achieve results. This is true in your spiritual life as well as on the racetrack.

James 1:2–4 shows the progression of spiritual stamina. In the passage, joy in the face of extreme trials produces endurance, the end result of which is maturity, or “perfection.” Pray for God’s help in meeting your everyday trials with the joy that comes from Christ, so that you may develop spiritual endurance and, ultimately, victorious maturity in Christ.

Lord, help me to respond properly as I face my trials today. Enable me to rejoice, knowing that You are developing spiritual endurance which will result in victory.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2006). Pathways to his presence (p. 86). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

March 23 Eternal Life

Scripture Reading: Psalm 103

Key Verse: Psalm 103:4

Who redeems your life from destruction, who crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies.

Whether on the deserted streets of Bombay or in a plush oceanfront home, whether clothed in tattered jeans or a fine suit, you can enjoy the good life that Jesus Christ imparts to all who believe and abide in Him. The good life is eternal life received as a gift through faith in Christ’s sacrifice for our sins.

Eternal life is as good as it gets. It is the everlasting, unending, unceasing presence of the eternal God, lavishing all of His goodness upon you in His limitless mercy and grace. It is a permanent possession, unaffected by the rise and fall of money, men, or nations. It is guaranteed by Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

But you can experience the reality of eternal life here and now. A new quality of life is available to all who have become one with the Savior. It is the abundant sufficiency of Christ for every circumstance.

Each day is an opportunity to draw from the divine well of peace, joy, love, faithfulness, gentleness, goodness, patience, and self-control without diminishing the supply by one ounce. Do not ever be deceived. Real life is in Jesus, and Jesus is in you. Inexhaustible, boundless life for you forever.

Precious heavenly Father, thank You for the inexhaustible, boundless life that is in Your Son, Jesus. Let me continually draw from Your divine resources.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 86). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Tens of Thousands March to ‘Save the Internet’ from New EU Censorship Regulations

BERLIN (AP) – Tens of thousands of people have marched in cities across Germany to protest planned European Union copyright reforms that they fear will lead to online censorship.

Source: Tens of Thousands March to ‘Save the Internet’ from New EU Censorship Regulations

LIBERAL INSANITY: Barbra Streisand Says That Because The Pedophile Gay Sex Michael Jackson Had With Child Victims ‘Didn’t Kill Them’ That It’s OK — Now The End Begins

Barbra Streisand is under fire for comments she made about two men accusing Michael Jackson of sexually assaulting them as children.

Thank you, Barbra Streisand, for proving to us once and for all the truth of two very importants points. First, you proved that Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder that knows no logic, reason, justice or mercy. Secondly, thank you for showing us all that you don’t care who gets hurt as long as it fits your agenda. It was OK for Bill Clinton to rape and assault women, and still have the full support of feminists, but Trump using the “P” word causes a million woman march on Washington. Really?

Fake outrage, just like fake news, is the stock in trade of the “new” Democratic Party. But you can only cry wolf when there is no wolf so many times before it comes back to haunt you. Barbra Streisand has seemingly no compassion for these victims of homosexual pedophile sexual assault, even after stating she believed thier stories. She defended what Jackson did because he had “sexual needs” to be fulfilled, and because he was rich and famous, he could do anything he wanted. Michael Jackson now knows there was a steep price to pay for dying without a Saviour, and it is a fate that Streisand will soon share if she doesn’t get saved. Pray that she does.

Barbra Streisand says Michael Jackson’s accusers were ‘thrilled to be there’ and his ‘sexual needs were his sexual needs’

FROM THE NY DAILY NEWS: The legendary singer and actress said that Wade Robson and James Safechuck — whose allegations against the late King of Pop resurfaced in the recent documentary “Leaving Neverland” — “were thrilled to be there” and that what allegedly happened to them “didn’t kill them.”

Streisand, 76, made the strange comments to British newspaper The Times in a piece out Friday, in which she also said that Jackson’s “sexual needs were his sexual needs.”

She says she “absolutely” believes the allegations of abuse by Robson and Safechuck, but puts more blame on their parents than The Gloved One.

“His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” Streisand told The Times. “You can say ‘molested,’ but those children, as you heard say [grown-up Robson and Safechuck], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”

Streisand, who crossed paths with Jackson during their careers, added that she feels sorry for both the alleged victims and Jackson.

“I feel bad for the children,” she said. “I feel bad for him. I blame, I guess, the parents, who would allow their children to sleep with him. Why would Michael need these little children dressed like him and in the shoes and the dancing and the hats?”

Dan Reed, the director of “Leaving Neverland,” seemed shocked at Streisand’s comments. “’It didn’t kill them’ @BarbraStreisand did you really say that?!,’” Reed tweeted Friday. Others were equally outraged.

“As a lifelong fan, I am deeply disappointed about your remarks regarding Michael Jackson,” a Twitter user going by Lisa Bee wrote. “I don’t understand how you could be so dismissive of the abuse that he inflicted and the damage that’s been done. It’s so unsympathetic to ALL victims of sexual abuse.” READ MORE

via LIBERAL INSANITY: Barbra Streisand Says That Because The Pedophile Gay Sex Michael Jackson Had With Child Victims ‘Didn’t Kill Them’ That It’s OK — Now The End Begins

March 23 Praying Specifically

Scripture reading: Ephesians 1:15–23

Key verse: Ephesians 1:18

The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints.

Do you ever struggle sometimes with knowing what to pray for? Do you ever have trouble coming up with the words to say? Maybe you can think of certain requests, but when it is time to voice them to God, you resort to using such vague phrases as, “Bless this person, Lord.”

You don’t need to feel guilty about this concern. God wants you to pray and communicate with Him, whatever words you use. You don’t have to be eloquent or polished to talk to your intimate Friend.

But you do need to realize that by not praying specifically about what is on your heart, you’re missing out on a whole level of blessing in talking to God. Notice how Paul prayed in Ephesians 1:18, as just one example: “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints.”

Paul applied truth from Scripture and asked God specifically to work those truths into the lives of people he cared for. Every time you read your Bible, jot down the lessons and promises that you read. The next time you pray for someone, ask God to show him what you learned, enriching him with knowledge of God’s Word. You’ll discover a whole new dimension of communication with the Lord.

Dear Lord, I pray that others will experience what I am learning and be enriched with the knowledge of Your Word.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2000). Into His presence (p. 86). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Worldview and Apologetics in the News for March 23, 2019 — Truthbomb Apologetics

A New Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

The Lost World of Walton

Making the Case: Apologetic Preaching and Abductive Argumentation

No Conspiracies, All Gospel: New Testament Scholar Praises New HISTORY TV Series

Dear Parents, My Movie is Rated R…

How Should Christians Respond to Christchurch Mosque Massacre?

A New Set of Spotlights on Elisabeth Elliot

Former ‘Prince of ISIS’ Turns to Christ After a God Dream: ‘I Saw a Love That Didn’t Exist in Islam’

Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller Revive a “Fishy Story”

An Astrophysicist Makes Clear Why A Multiverse MUST Exist

New Apologetics and Worldview Curriculum for Children: Author Interview

Dartmouth physicist on winning top religion prize: ‘Science does kill God’

John Lennox: The Oxford Mathematics Professor Who Defends Christianity

How Universalism, ‘the Opiate of the Theologians,’ Went Mainstream

Courage and Godspeed,

Our last edition is here.

via Worldview and Apologetics in the News — Truthbomb Apologetics

‘The left has gone too far’: Jordan Peterson warns against liberal ‘totalitarian tilt’ (VIDEO)

Controversial academic Jordan Peterson told RT’s Afshin Rattansi that the left’s obsession with equality of outcome is doomed to failure, advocating instead for individuals to assume greater personal responsibility. Read Full Article at RT.com

Source: ‘The left has gone too far’: Jordan Peterson warns against liberal ‘totalitarian tilt’ (VIDEO)

Ilhan Omar Holding Secret Meetings With Islamic Groups With Terrorist Ties To Raise Funds | The Federalist Papers

Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar has been meeting behind the scenes with Islamic groups that have ties to terrorism to help with fundraising.

The meetings have been deliberately closed off from the press and hidden from public view to avoid scrutiny, The Washington Free Beacon reported.

The content of these speeches, given to predominately Muslim audiences, remains unknown, prompting some of Omar’s critics to express concern about the type of rhetoric she is using before these paying audiences, particularly in light of the lawmaker’s repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes in public.

Omar recently spoke in Florida at a private event hosted by Islamic Relief, a charity organization long said to have deep ties to groups that advocate terrorism against Israel. Over the weekend, she will appear at another private event in California that is hosted by CAIR-CA PAC, a political action committee affiliated with the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR a group that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive terror-funding incident.

Omar’s appearance at these closed-door forums is raising eyebrows in the pro-Israel world due to her repeated and unapologetic public use of anti-Semitic stereotypes accusing Jewish people of controlling foreign policy and politics. With Omar’s popularity skyrocketing on the anti-Israel left, it appears her rhetoric is translating into fundraising prowess.

It remains unclear what Omar has told these audiences in her private talks. Washington Free Beacon attempts to obtain video of past events were unsuccessful, and multiple local news and television outlets in the Tampa, Fla., area, where Omar spoke to Islamic Relief last month, confirmed they were unable to gain access to the closed door event.

Islamic Relief has come under congressional investigation for what lawmakers have described as its efforts to provide assistance to terrorist group such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The charity has been banned by some countries as a result of these ties.

In 2017, Congress sought to ban taxpayer funds from reaching the charity due to these terror links.

Should Omar resign from Congress?

A representative from Islamic Relief declined to provide the Free Beacon with any material related to Omar’s appearance.

“The event was closed to the media. No materials are available,” the official said.

On Sunday, Omar will hold another meet and greet in Irvine, Calif., for CAIR-CA PAC. Those wishing to hear Omar speak are being asked to donate anywhere from $50 to $250 dollars, according to a flyer for the event.

The CAIR event also appears closed to the press. Free Beacon attempts to contact the organizer and obtain access were unsuccessful. Requests for comment on the nature of the speeches sent to Omar’s congressional office also were not returned.

“I just wonder what is Rep. Omar saying to a group of Islamic supporters that she feels is so secretive that she cannot say it to the American people, as a whole?” Sarah Stern, founder of president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, said.

“What is so secretive that it has to be off the record and closed to reporters? Will she say the same things in public to her Jewish voters in Minnesota that she says to her Islamic friends? What does this tell us about her openness, her honesty and her integrity?” she said.

“Rep. Omar’s presence as a keynote speaker to raise funds for Islamic Relief USA, whose parent organization and chapters have documented ties to terrorist organizations, demonstrates that she has learned next to nothing over the last few weeks when she was reprimanded by your office and by other Democrats for posting ugly, anti-Semitic attacks on Jews and their organizations,” Pro-Israel groups said in a letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Elliott Engel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) has been holding a series of secret fundraisers with groups that have been tied to the support of terrorism, appearances that have been closed to the press and hidden from public view.” https://t.co/lvy8SloMVW

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) March 22, 2019

No they’re not.

Donald Trump is the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history

Ilhan Omar is a notorious anti-Semite who fundraisers for Islamic groups tied to terrorism https://t.co/lz1CbuwiiC

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 22, 2019

A sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives holding secret fundraisers with groups that are on-record as supporting terrorism should be grounds for expulsion from Congress.https://t.co/YB8JTry3jX

— Adrian Norman (@AdrianNormanDC) March 22, 2019

What say you @SpeakerPelosi & @realDonaldTrump sir?
Ilhan Omar Holding Private Fundraisers with Islamist Groups Linked to Terrorism: https://t.co/W1T7Gg0eKb

— Herbert Reed (@Herbert_L_Reed) March 23, 2019

Source: Ilhan Omar Holding Secret Meetings With Islamic Groups With Terrorist Ties To Raise Funds

Don’t Panic Over Inverted Yield Curve; Here’s The Key Chart For Dow Jones | Investor’s Business Daily

Recession talk flared up on Friday as the 10-year Treasury yield tumbled below that of the 3-month Treasury. While this signal has a spot-on track record in predicting a recession, there are reasons to take it with a grain of salt now. But another key economic indicator also flashed a worrying sign. The breakout of copper prices last month signaled that 2019 might be like 2016. That year saw the global economy rebound and the Dow Jones start a new leg to much greater heights. Yet that breakout failed on Friday, casting doubt on whether a new global upturn is at hand.

The 10-year Treasury tumbled 10 basis points to 2.44%, the lowest since late 2017, while the 3-month Treasury eased just 2 basis points. When long-term rates fall below short-term rates, it’s called an inversion because it’s upside down relative to the way things usually work during an economic expansion.

Meanwhile, the Dow Jones industrial average shed 460 points, or 1.8%, while the S&P 500 lost 1.9% and the Nasdaq composite 2.5%.

Copper prices fell 2%, though part of the weakness stemmed from the stronger dollar. The U.S. Dollar Index, which measures the greenback against a basket of advanced-economy currencies, rose 0.75%. The dollar has remained stubbornly strong, despite the Fed’s dovish shift.

Dr. Copper’s Prognosis For Dow Jones

The industrial metal earned the nickname Dr. Copper for its ability to discern global economy ups and downs. Its track record in recent years has been impressive. After bottoming in January 2016 at $1.94 per pound, copper staged a mild recovery, then exploded higher after President Donald Trump’s election. Copper prices ranged from $3-$3.25 a pound from August 2017 through June 2018, anticipating the economic surge that peaked in the second quarter of last year.

Then copper fell into a seven-month funk, stuck between $2.60 and $2.87. That ended on Feb. 19, when copper prices broke above the trading range. They kept pushing higher, hitting $2.96. But prices had been receding lately and fell just below $2.85 on Friday. This will be a key chart to watch going forward.

Inverted Yield Curve Follows Weak Global Factory Data

Copper prices and Treasury yields both sank for related reasons on Friday. Manufacturing survey data published by IHS Markit indicated that euro zone manufacturing activity contracted the most in nearly six years. Activity in Germany fell for a third straight month. Meanwhile, Japanese factory activity also shrank, while U.S. activity grew at the weakest pace since June 2017. The rising odds of a hard Brexit, though hardly a sure thing, also may be creating a bid for safe assets.

Fed Rate Hike Mistake

The main takeaway from the inverted yield curve is that the Fed erred in hiking interest rates in December 2018, as should have been clear at the time. If the Fed were to immediately cut rates by a quarter point, then the yield-curve inversion would disappear. While the inverted yield curve probably does signal that the risk of recession is rising, it’s not a given. Global central bank bond buying, low inflation, and negative interest rates in Japan and now Germany are among the factors that complicate the typical yield-curve analysis.

Financial markets are now pricing in close to 60% odds of a rate cut by December. Bank stocks, particularly regional and super-regional banks, have tanked the past several days as the yield curve turned against them. Banks borrowing at short-term rates and lending at longer-term rates see their net interest margins compressed as the yield curve flattens and inverts.

The bull thesis has been that, as in 2016, a dovish Fed shift and Chinese economic stimulus would lift the global economy. A China trade deal has been viewed as another catalyst this year, though the date of a deal-signing summit keeps getting pushed back. While it’s too early to throw in the towel on the bull market thesis, copper prices are signaling that it’s no sure thing.

Bottom line: Don’t worry about the inverted yield curve unless copper prices confirm that we have a problem. Right now, the signal is still fairly weak, but it’s still concerning.

Source: Don’t Panic Over Inverted Yield Curve; Here’s The Key Chart For Dow Jones

Classroom Videos Show James MacDonald Bullying Students & Disparaging Rival School — Julie Roys

Many have asked me to release videos I have of James MacDonald berating students at Harvest Christian Academy (HCA) during his ill-fated and short-lived time as a guest Bible teacher there in January and February of 2017. I have been reluctant to do so, not because I’m trying to protect MacDonald, but because I do not have video of the incident described in my WORLD exposé of Harvest, which several people have told me was the most shocking. And I didn’t want to give the impression that the videos I have represent the worst of MacDonald’s behavior when the truth is, they may be tame in comparison.

However, the behavior in the videos below do give a glimpse into the character of the man who founded and pastored Harvest for 31 years. Both videos show MacDonald confronting students in a harsh manner, and in one, he mocks a student. One also shows MacDonald disparaging a neighboring school, saying, “Like, why do they even have a school?”

I think Harvest parents, church members, and anyone who’s supported the ministry of Harvest Bible Chapel or MacDonald’s broadcast ministry, Walk in the Word, have a right to see what’s depicted in the videos below. Also, it’s notable that Talbott Behnken, HCA superintendent now and at the time of these incidents, also serves on Harvest’s new Church Leadership Team. Also serving on that team is Todd Rukes, who received videographer Luke Helmer’s stunning resignation letter.

But again, the videos below do not represent the worst incident. The video of the worst incident reportedly has been erased, but there are several descriptions of it.

Here’s how I described the incident in WORLD:

 In 2017, videographer Luke Helmer resigned from Harvest one day after witnessing MacDonald teach a Bible class to a roomful of teenage students at Harvest Christian Academy. Citing what he called MacDonald’s “pattern of uncontrolled anger,” Helmer in his Feb. 16, 2017, resignation letter (posted below) said MacDonald had singled out two students, “berated them for minutes in front of the entire high school student body, mocked them, called them ‘morons,’ ‘fools,’ ‘stupid,’ and he threatened one of them physically.” The incident also upset several parents who later heard about it.

Asked about the incident, MacDonald told WORLD he had been responding to a student who yelled something “very coarse and troubling” aloud in class. “I for sure was too intense and did locate the student and did move them up to the front and did let them know what I thought of the behavior. … At the end of class, though, I did feel grieved in my heart that it was too intense.” MacDonald said he apologized to the student and his classmate the same day, recorded an apology video shown to the class, and talked to the offended parents.

Also, here’s what Dallas Jenkins, former executive director of Vertical Church Films and a parent of HCA students, wrote about the incident in a recent letter submitted to Harvest leaders:

Some of us have children who came home from school in February of 2017 shocked and saddened by one of the worst outbursts of anger they’d ever witnessed–a berating by James of two students in front of the entire high school. Several students were in tears watching it, a student described spit hitting her in the front row. There was a videotaped apology, and a year later, an in-person apology. But the public promise by James to teach the class for the semester was never kept, the schedule that had been completely upended to accommodate his teaching never fixed, and an apology for breaking that promise was never given.

To be fair, a few elders and staff have told me they did not believe the incident was a big deal, that their children did not report it as a problem. And one of the top leaders of the church told me he wishes James wouldn’t have apologized for the incident at all. However, that same person had the video of the incident erased immediately, ensuring those not in the classroom that day would never see it.

Below are two videos, which were sent to me from an anonymous source. They appear to be videos of a video playing on a computer monitor. It’s my understanding that all the videos below were at one time posted online at Harvest’s Vimeo site.

MacDonald Grabs and Confronts Student

In this first video from January 25, 2017, MacDonald confronts a student for falling asleep in class. He walks up an aisle, grabs the sweatshirt of a student by the shoulder, and pulls his arm off the top of the seat adjacent to him, saying, “Sit right up. Get your hands off the chair. . . . Don’t let me see you sleeping again, or I’ll throw you right out of here. I’m not even joking.”

Then MacDonald adds, “Pay attention in class. Stop wasting my time, you hear me? You hear me? (boy responds inaudibly) ‘Yes sir’ is your answer. Say, ‘Yes sir.’ (boy responds inaudibly) All right. Don’t make that mistake again.”

MacDonald Mocks Student & Disparages Neighboring School

In the second clip from February 8, 2017, MacDonald mocks a student in the front row because he failed to bring his book, notebook, and pen to class. He also disparages a neighboring school.

“Magic guy. You’re like in the front row two weeks in a row. Is that a trick? Is that a trick you pulled? . . .” MacDonald asks. “Nice play. Where’s your book?”

The student responds, “I left it at home today.”

“You left it at home today,” MacDonald says. “That’s super awesome. Can’t you just like – pfugh – make it appear or something?” Then MacDonald asks if anyone wants to “bless” the student with a pen and a paper. A student apparently brings him one and MacDonald responds sarcastically, “Hey, glad I could do this for you (name).”

“Thank you,” the student responds.

“Ya, no, no problem,” MacDonald says. Then he discovers the student is a freshman and adds, “You’re a freshman! Oh my gosh, you’ve got four years to learn how to bring your stuff to class!” Then he instructs the boy to respond, “Thanks Pastor James.”

“Thanks Pastor James,” the boy says.

“Nice. I’m even giving you your lines now. Wow!” MacDonald says.

MacDonald also insults a nearby private school, Westminster Christian School, which HCA had apparently crushed in a girls’ basketball game the night before class.

“Like, why do they even have a school?” MacDonald jeers. “Like they should just – they should, they should come over here and we should have them in a different hallway. It’s like the B school. And, and uh, that’s what I’m going to be recommending. And um, I’m, I’m loyal to our church so, so that’s allowed.”

MacDonald Gets Physical With Students: “Teachers aren’t allowed to touch students, but pastors are.”

I downloaded this last video from Harvest’s Vimeo site last fall. (The link I used to access the video is no longer active.) This is the full class on February 8 from which the previous video excerpt was grabbed. The previous video shows the beginning of the class, which clearly has  been edited out of the video below. (You’ll see the beginning of the video below is the same as the end of the video above.)

The most telling part of the video below occurs between 36:25-38:39. Here, MacDonald gets physical with students as a way of driving his points home. Then, as he’s doing so, he says, “Teachers aren’t allowed to touch students, but pastors are.”

He also again makes fun of the student he confronted at the beginning of class. While urging the class to work hard intellectually, he says, “What I’m concerned about is that you’ll be a little bit lazy intellectually.” Then referencing the student who forgot to bring his supplies to class, MacDonald says, “Like showing up at class with no pen or paper—like stuff like that. But you’re just a freshman so everything’s good. Plus, you’ve been working on your magic tricks. So that takes a lot of time.”

Luke Helmer’s Resignation Letter:

via Classroom Videos Show James MacDonald Bullying Students & Disparaging Rival School — Julie Roys

After Mueller’s Exoneration of Trump, Full Disclosure — National Review

Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill, June 21, 2017. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

The FISA applications, the testimony in secret hearings, the scope memorandum — all of it.

The news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has closed his investigation without recommending criminal charges against President Trump is a relief. It is not a surprise.

Nor is it a surprise that the news has Trump antagonists clamoring for full disclosure of the special counsel’s final report. Mind you, when skeptics of the Trump-Russia investigation asked what the criminal predicate for it was, and on what basis the Obama administration had decided to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign, we were admonished about the wages of disclosure — the compromise of precious defense secrets, of deep-cover intelligence sources and methods. Why, to ask for such information was to be an insurrectionist seeking to destroy the FBI, the Justice Department, and the rule of law itself. Now, though, it’s only the uncharged president of the United States at issue, so disclose away!

Well, if we’re going to have disclosure, fine. But let’s have full disclosure: Mueller’s report in addition to the FISA applications; the memoranda pertinent to the opening and continuation of the investigation; the testimony in secret hearings; the scope memorandum Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued on August 2, 2017, after failing to cite a crime when he appointed Mueller — let’s have all of it.

As far as the special counsel’s report goes, because of the way the regulations work (at least when the Justice Department deigns to follow them), we now have Mueller’s bottom line, but not his reasoning and the underlying facts. It is the opposite of the Trump opposition’s preferred Roger Stone and George Papadopoulos scenario, where Mueller’s team spins pages and pages of “Gee, sure seems like a lot of almost-collusion here” before you flip to the end and find that there’s no case — just a campaign hanger-on who lied to an investigator long after the imaginary espionage conspiracy occurred. At the moment, we just have Mueller’s conclusion: There is no basis to indict the president for a crime — not collusion, not obstruction, not false statements. The collusion-peddlers, who took great umbrage at the suggestion that “VERIFIED” FISA surveillance-warrant applications should be disclosed, now demand Mueller’s full report so they can get to the familiar work of obscuring the bottom line and spinning the spin.

As we’ve noted before, unlike Mueller, who needs a crime to indict, Congress does not need a crime to impeach. The media-Democrat alliance does not need a crime to inflate Mueller’s not-quite-so stories into treason. To keep this carnival rolling on for another year and a half, they just need fodder for the narrative — which is so predictably morphing from the collusion narrative to the impeachment narrative to the campaign narrative.

Since before Robert Mueller was appointed, I have been contending that there was no legal basis for the appointment of a special counsel because there was no evidence that the president had committed a crime. For nearly a year and a half, I’ve maintained that Mueller had nothing close to an actionable “collusion” case, that he had no prosecutable obstruction case, and that this exercise was an impeachment investigation geared more toward rendering Trump unelectable in 2020 than toward actually removing him from office.

This was not to dismiss Russia’s provocations (which Democrats spent most of the Obama years ignoring, and — when it comes to hacking — which Obama himself spent the 2016 campaign mostly ignoring). It was always essential that the FBI use its counterintelligence authorities for their proper purpose — to monitor and undermine foreign powers. It still is.

But investigations targeting Americans for violating the law have to be premised on crime. Even FISA, which allows a court to authorize spying on an American citizen suspected of being an agent of a foreign power, requires the Justice Department and the FBI to show probable cause that the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity on behalf of the foreign power — and that this clandestine activity is a probable violation of American criminal law. (See FISA, section 1801(b)(2) of Title 50, U.S. Code — the definition of “agent of a foreign power” that applies to American citizens.)

That is why, as we have repeatedly pointed out, “collusion” is a weasel word. “Collusion” is just association — concerted activity that could be benign, sinister, or somewhere in between. It is not a crime to have relationships, even troubling ones, with Russians. Fortunately for the Clinton campaign, it is not a crime to attempt to gather opposition research from foreign sources — even former British spies who purport to have Kremlin-connected sources. When Americans are involved, the only collusion that federal criminal and counterintelligence law trouble themselves over involves conspiracy (or its close cousin, aiding and abetting). There must be knowing complicity in a crime. If you don’t have a good-faith basis to believe a crime has been committed, you don’t have an investigation.

Again, we were pointing that out before Mueller was appointed. In order to justify a special-counsel appointment, the regulations require two things: (1) the attorney general (or the deputy AG when, as here, the AG is recused) must be able to articulate the factual basis for a criminal investigation or prosecution; (2) that investigation or prosecution must create a conflict of interest so profound that the Justice Department cannot ethically conduct the investigation — a lawyer must be brought in from outside the government. It is the alleged crime that determines what is to be investigated and whether there is a conflict.

Here, the issue was solely the president. The Justice Department and FBI did not need a special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation of Russia, or a criminal investigation of, say, Michael Flynn or Paul Manafort. Indeed, such investigations were underway before Mueller’s appointment. A special counsel would have been needed only for the president, on the rationale that the president cannot credibly be investigated by his own Justice Department. That is fine: The president is not above the law, and if there is evidence that he committed a crime, he should be investigated. But there has to be evidence that he committed a crime.

There wasn’t. Even in his shocking public announcement that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for possible “coordination” in Russia’s election interference, former FBI director James Comey never actually accused the president of a crime. While privately assuring Trump that he was not a suspect, Comey publicly stated that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence probe. You can believe, as I do, that this was a pretext for a criminal investigation that lacked a crime; but for present purposes, that’s irrelevant. The point is: There was no crime.

In May 2017, in the wake of Trump’s firing of Comey (which acting FBI director Andrew McCabe wrongly concluded could be the basis for an obstruction investigation), Rosenstein appointed Mueller. But, again, no crime was cited (Rosenstein obviously knew better than McCabe). Perforce, there was no need for a special counsel. In the Justice Department, the FBI — not a prosecutor — conducts counterintelligence investigations. And there was palpably no conflict of interest requiring an outside lawyer. How could there be? There was no factual basis for a crime, and you can’t know whether there is a conflict unless you know what the suspected crime is. Plus, Mueller recruited his staff from the Justice Department’s top echelon, and later transferred cases he brought to Justice Department components; these actions would have been inappropriate if the Justice Department had actually been conflicted.

There was no need for a special counsel. And there was no case — again, obviously. Mueller never charged any Trump associate with any kind of espionage conspiracy. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, when prosecutors have a conspiracy case, they induce the cooperating accomplice witnesses to plead guilty to the conspiracy and implicate the other conspirators at the time of the plea. Mueller, instead, pled his putative accomplices to process crimes of lying to investigators, and to massive fraud crimes that had nothing to do with Trump or Russia. No competent prosecutor builds a case that way — and Mueller is an exceptionally competent prosecutor.

Moreover, wholly apart from Mueller’s evidence-based decision not to accuse Trump associates of complicity in Russia’s election interference, there are also Mueller’s two indictments of Russian operatives — the hacking and troll-farm cases. These charges not only fail to suggest a conspiratorial link to the Trump campaign; they positively indicate that the Russian operatives neither needed nor wanted American partners. They wanted deniability. Their operations predated Trump’s entry into the campaign, and some of them were anti-Trump in nature.

Did Putin want Trump to win the election? Who knows? But there is no reason to think Putin (unlike any other informed observer) believed Trump would win the election. What Russia was aiming for is what Russia is always aiming for: to sow discord in American society and make it more difficult for the American government to pursue American interests. In any event, Mueller’s Russia indictments, like his charges against Trump associates, appeared to preclude the possibility of a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy. If Mueller had suddenly found Trump guilty of “collusion,” his prior prosecutions would have been incomprehensible.

And, to reiterate another oft-made point, a federal prosecutor cannot properly charge an obstruction case against the president based on lawful exercises of the chief executive’s constitutional prerogatives. To be sure, a president may be cited for obstruction based on acts that the Constitution does not endorse and that corruptly tamper with evidence or witnesses. But because prosecutorial power is executive in nature, a president — like a prosecutor — is permitted by the Constitution to take actions that negatively affect an investigation. A president is permitted to weigh in on the merits of an investigation; he may fire the investigators (including the FBI director); he may issue pardons.

Clearly, these powers can be abused, and if they are, Congress may impeach the president. But it is not the place of a prosecutor, an inferior federal officer, to second-guess the chief executive’s exercise of executive discretion just because the inferior officer suspects improper motivation. The president should suffer politically for inappropriately insinuating himself in law-enforcement activities; but it is not a crime for him to do so.

Finally, unlike criminal investigations, which are conducted to vindicate the rule of law in judicial proceedings and which should be insulated from politics, counterintelligence investigations are done strictly for the president — to assist him in carrying out his national-security duties. If a president were to shut down a counterintelligence investigation — which Trump has never done in connection with Russia, even after the FBI director publicly portrayed Trump’s campaign as a suspected collaborator — that could not be an obstruction crime, even if it were a reckless decision. It is the politically accountable president, not the administrative state, who determines the nation’s intelligence needs.

In sum, we have endured a two-year ordeal in which the president of the United States was forced to govern under a cloud of suspicion — suspicion of being a traitor, of scheming with a foreign adversary to steal an election. This happened because the Obama administration — which opened the probe of the Trump campaign, and which opted to use foreign counterintelligence spying powers rather than give Trump a defensive briefing about suspected Russian infiltration of his campaign — methodically forced its suspicions about Trump into the public domain.

It is not just that FISA warrants were sought on the basis of the Steele dossier, an uncorroborated Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed that the Obama Justice Department and FBI well knew was being peddled to the media at the same time. There was a patently premeditated stream of intelligence leaks depicting a corrupt Trump-Russia arrangement.

After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, Obama, after doing virtually nothing about Russian aggression for most of eight years, suddenly made a show of issuing sanctions, seizing Russian assets, and expelling Russian operatives. He then rushed the completion of an intelligence assessment that would ordinarily have taken months to complete, so that it would be issued on his watch; and presto: The public was told not only that Russia interfered in the campaign, but that Russia did so because Putin was trying to get Trump elected. (Of course, the public was not told that Obama had known what Russia was doing during the campaign, but concluded it was too trivial to warrant a response; and the public was not reminded that, just days before the election — when Russia’s perfidy was well known to the Obama administration — both Obama and Hillary Clinton chastised Trump for daring to suggest that an American presidential election could be rigged.)

The intelligence assessment provided Obama’s intelligence agencies with a pretext to brief President-elect Trump on the Steele dossier. That, in turn, gave the media — previously skittish about the dossier’s sensational, unverified allegations — exactly the news hook they needed to publish it. Weeks later, as the FBI continued relying on the unverified Steele dossier in FISA-warrant applications, the FBI director, in public testimony, not only disclosed the existence of a classified counterintelligence investigation but gratuitously added that Trump’s campaign was a subject of the probe and that an assessment would be made of whether any crimes were committed — signaling to the world that Trump was a suspect in what would be, if proved, one of the most heinous crimes in American history. Then, finally, more leaks to the media triggered the appointment of a special counsel in the absence of actual evidence that the president had committed a crime.

You want disclosure? Me too. But let’s see all of it. Not just Mueller’s report. Let’s see everything: all of the memoranda relevant to the opening of the investigation, all of the testimony at closed hearings, all of the FISA-warrant applications, all of Rosenstein’s scope memo. (A year ago, I surmised that scope memo is redacted because it relies on the Steele dossier — as did the FISA-warrant application Rosenstein had approved just a few weeks earlier; anyone want to bet me on that?)

If a victorious Democratic nominee had been subjected to such an investigation, there would never have been a special counsel, but we would already have chapter and verse on every investigative action. If we’re going to have accountability, let’s have complete accountability.

via After Mueller’s Exoneration of Trump, Full Disclosure — National Review

Jerome Corsi celebrates end of Russia probe, says he feels ‘vindicated’ for not giving in to Mueller’s investigators

Conservative author Jerome Corsi declared he’s “vindicated” after the Special Counsel Robert Mueller ended the Russia investigation and recommends no new indictments.

Source: Jerome Corsi celebrates end of Russia probe, says he feels ‘vindicated’ for not giving in to Mueller’s investigators

WikiLeaks Raising $1 Million For Leaked Copy Of Mueller Report | ZeroHedge News

DOJ staffers who like money and know where AG Barr keeps the keys to his safe, take note. WikiLeaks has launched a $1 million fundraiser over the next seven days “used to facilitate the full publication” of the long-awaited Mueller report, which was completed on Friday and submitted to Attorney General William Barr for review.

A summary of key findings is expected to reach Congress this weekend, which is expected to be made public. A release of the full report, however, will be up to Barr, the White House and Congress.

And while many on the left – including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer – are calling for the public release of the report so they can pick through its findings for “Gotchas!” to ride into 2020, conservatives are similarly calling for its release so they can finally put the conspiracy theory to rest and expose the investigation as a “witch hunt” once and for all.

Enter WikiLeaks:

It is unclear on how the whistleblower organization plans to obtain the report once the million dollars is raised – as it appears they assume someone will step up and claim their golden ticket to the chocolate factory (or prison, if caught).

On Wednesday, President Trump said he has no problem with the public seeing the report.

We expect at some point the public will [redacted] a [redacted] copy of the report, which will reveal that [redacted] plotted against [redacted]. And since nobody is watching the watchers, [redacted] will never face justice.

Source: WikiLeaks Raising $1 Million For Leaked Copy Of Mueller Report

Barbra Streisand: Michael Jackson’s Alleged Child Molestation Fulfilled His ‘Sexual Needs’

Actress Barbra Streisand made a series of bizarre comments about the child molestation allegations against pop legend Michael Jackson in a new interview, saying that children were “thrilled” to be with him.

Source: Barbra Streisand: Michael Jackson’s Alleged Child Molestation Fulfilled His ‘Sexual Needs’

Caitlin Johnstone Rages: “Mock The Russiagaters. Mock Them Ruthlessly” | ZeroHedge News

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

The Robert Mueller investigation which monopolized political discourse for two years has finally concluded, and his anxiously awaited report has been submitted to Attorney General William Barr. The results are in and the debate is over: those advancing the conspiracy theory that the Kremlin has infiltrated the highest levels of the US government were wrong, and those of us voicing skepticism of this were right.

The contents of the report are still secret, but CNN’s Justice Department reporter Laura Jarrett has told us all we need to know, tweeting, “Special Counsel Mueller is not recommending ANY further indictments am told.” On top of that, William Barr said in a letter to congressional leaders that there has been no obstruction of Mueller’s investigation by Justice Department officials.

So that’s it, then. A completely unhindered investigation has failed to convict a single American of any kind of conspiracy with the Russian government, and no further indictments are coming. The political/media class which sold rank-and-file Americans on the lie that the Mueller investigation was going to bring down this presidency were liars and frauds, and none of the goalpost-moving that I am sure is already beginning to happen will change that.

It has been obvious from the very beginning that the Maddow Muppets were being sold a lie. In 2017 I wrote an article titled “How We Can Be Certain That Mueller Won’t Prove Trump-Russia Collusion”, saying that Mueller would continue finding evidence of corruption “since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish”, but he will not find evidence of collusion. If you care to take a scroll through the angry comments on that article, just on Medium alone, you will see a frozen snapshot of what the expectations were from mainstream liberals at the time. They had swallowed the Russiagate narrative hook, line and sinker, and they believed that the Mueller investigation was going to vindicate them. It did not.

I’ve been saying Russiagate is bullshit from the beginning, and I’ve been called a Trump shill, a Kremlin propagandist, a Nazi and a troll every day for saying so by credulous mass media-consuming dupes who drank the Kool Aid. And I’ve only taken a fraction of the flack more high profile Russiagate skeptics like Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey have been getting for expressing doubt in the Gospel According to Maddow. The insane, maniacal McCarthyite feeding frenzy that these people were plunged into by nonstop mass media propaganda drowned out the important voices who tried to argue that public energy was being sucked into Russia hysteria and used to manufacture support for dangerous cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower.

Just think what we could have done with that energy over the last two years. Think how much public support could have been poured into the sweeping progressive reforms called for by the Sanders movement, for example, instead of constant demands for more sanctions and nuclear posturing against Russia. Think how much more attention could have been drawn to Trump’s actual horrific policies like his facilitation of Saudi butchery in Yemen or his regime change agendas in Iran and Venezuela, his support for ecocide and military expansionism and the barbarism of Jair Bolsonaro and Benjamin Netanyahu. Think how much more energy could have gone into beating back the Republicans in the midterms, reclaiming far more House seats and taking the Senate as well, gathering momentum for a presidential candidacy that truly threatens Trump instead of 9,000 primary candidates who will probably be selected by superdelegates after the first ballot when there’s too many of them to establish a clear majority under the new rules.

We must never let them forget what they did or what they cost us all. We must never let mainstream Democrats forget how crazy they got, how much time and energy they wasted, how very, very wrong they were and how very, very right we were.

Never stop reminding them of this. Never stop mocking them for it. Never stop mocking their idiotic Rachel Maddow worship. Never stop mocking the Robert Mueller prayer candles. Never stop making fun of the way they blamed all their problems on Susan Sarandon. Never stop reminding them of those stupid pink vagina hats. Never stop mocking them for elevating Louise Mensch and Eric Garland. Never stop mocking them for creating the fucking Krassenstein brothers.

Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life. Going forward, authority and credibility rests solely with those who kept clear eyes and clear heads during the mass media propaganda blitzkrieg, not with those who were stupid enough to believe what they were told about the behaviors of a noncompliant government in a post-Iraq invasion world. The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.

Source: Caitlin Johnstone Rages: “Mock The Russiagaters. Mock Them Ruthlessly”

SPLC Implodes: President And Legal Director Resign Amid Sexual Misconduct Scandal | ZeroHedge News

The Southern Poverty Law Center – the “vicious left-wing attack dog” used by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon to identify “hate groups” – is unraveling.

A week after co-founder Morris Dees was ousted over sexual misconduct claims – with two dozen employees signing a letter of concern over “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism,” the head of the SPLC, Richard Cohen, as well as the organization’s legal director, Rhonda Brownstein, resigned on Friday. 

Morris Dees, Richard Cohen, Rhonda Brownstein

Cohen had been with the organization 33 years and was one of its most prominent figures.

At 5:03 p.m. Friday, Cohen sent a message to staff, with the subject line “Stepping Down,” announcing that he, too, would be leaving the organization that he and Dees had turned into a research and fundraising juggernaut.

“Whatever problems exist at the SPLC happened on my watch, so I take responsibility for them,” Cohen wrote, while asking the staff to avoid jumping to conclusions before the board completes an internal review of the Montgomery, Ala., organization’s work culture. –LA Times

Earlier this week, the SPLC board of directors appointed Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, Tina Tchen – who, in an unrelated matter, unsuccessfully tried to pull strings and have the Jussie Smollett case transferred from the Chicago PD to the FBI. Tchen is heading up the inquiry into the sexual misconduct claims.

Tina Tchen

Also out on Friday was Rhonda Brownstein – who had worked with the organization for nearly three decades, according to the Montgomery Advertiser‘s Melissa Brown.

Inside the SPLC “Scam”

As the Washington Examiner‘s Beckett Adams writes, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a “scam,” which has taken ” no care whatsoever for the reputational and personal harm it causes by lumping Christians and anti-extremist activists with actual neo-Nazis.”

As it turns out, the SPLC is a cynical money-making scheme, according to a former staffer’s blistering tell-all, published this week in the New Yorker. The center’s chief goal is to bilk naive and wealthy donors who believe it’s an earnest effort to combat bigotry.

The only thing worse than a snarling partisan activist is a slimy conman who merely pretends to be one. –Washington Examiner

““Outside of work,” recalls Bob Moser of his days working for the organization, “we spent a lot of time drinking and dishing in Montgomery bars and restaurants about … the hyperbolic fund-raising appeals, and the fact that, though the center claimed to be effective in fighting extremism, ‘hate’ always continued to be on the rise, more dangerous than ever, with each year’s report on hate groups. ‘The S.P.L.C.—making hate pay,’ we’d say.”

“[I]t was hard, for many of us, not to feel like we’d become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam,” added Moser.

The way Moser tells it, the center’s chief founder, Morris Dees, who was dismissed unceremoniously last week for unspecified reasons, discovered early on that he could rake in boatloads of cash by convincing “gullible Northern liberals that his group is doing the hard work of fighting “hate.”

But the center’s supposed mission of combating bigotry doesn’t actually matter to its top brass, Moser says. It’s just a business choice and one that has been extremely lucrative throughout the years. Moser’s article reminds readers of the time Dees actually said of the SPLC in an interview with then-Progressive magazine reporter John Egerton, “We just run our business like a business. Whether you’re selling cakes or causes, it’s all the same.” –Washington Examiner

Moser claims that the SPLC’s business model centers entirely around keeping its precious donors in constant fear using gimmicks such as “hate maps” and “hate lists.”

“[T]he center continues to take in far more than it spends. And it still tends to emphasize splashy cases that are sure to draw national attention,” he writes adding the group’s “central strategy” involves “taking on cases guaranteed to make headlines and inflame the far right while demonstrating to potential donors that the center has not only all the right enemies but also the grit and know-how to take them down.”

Moser adds there is an inescapable sense of “guilt” that comes with thinking about “the legions of donors who believed that their money was being used, faithfully and well, to do the Lord’s work in the heart of Dixie. We were part of the con, and we knew it.”

Who knew you could make the big bucks simply by lumping Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ben Carson with actual, honest-to-God neo-Nazis? –Washington Examiner

Right wing commentator and Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes is currently suing the SPLC for labeling his right-wing fraternal organization, the Proud Boys, a hate group.

The SPLC has gone from a noble institution genuinely dedicated to eradicating hate to a hate group in and of itself that pretends this country is frothing with bigots desperate to foment World War III,” McInnes said in a press release.

McInnes has raised nearly $200,000 out of a goal of $250,000 to continue his lawsuit. From his website Defendgavin.com: 

I’m suing the SPLC. And it’s not just because they destroyed my career and shattered my reputation. It’s because they could do the same to you. Though this group is often cited as a credible source by the media, nobody who actually knows stuff takes them seriously.

No, being called an extremist by the SPLC does NOT mean you’re an extremist. No, being called a Hate Group by the SPLC does NOT make you a Hate Group. And no, being called a racist or an anti-Semite or an Islamophobe or a transphobe or a homophobe by the SPLC does NOT make you any of those things. -Gavin McInnes

We wonder if there will even be an SPLC left to sue by the time it reaches a courtroom.

Source: SPLC Implodes: President And Legal Director Resign Amid Sexual Misconduct Scandal

Ex-CBS’s Logan Slams Media Deceptively Slanting Against Trump

Appearing as a guest on Fox and Friends Saturday, during a discussion of liberal media reaction to the Mueller collusion probe, former CBS reporter Lara Logan complained that the media deceptively gave the impression that the indictments obtained so far are with regard to collusion with Russia when they were, in fact, about issues other than the main focus of the investigation.

Shortly before 9:00 a.m. Eastern, after playing several clips of CNN and MSNBC anchors talking up the possibilty of President Donald Trump being found to have committed serious crimes, fill-in co-host Katie Pavlich asked Logan for her evaluation of the media coverage. Logan began: “It’s always bothered me, as a journalist, you know, I mean, I care about what the law says and what the fact are, and collusion is not a crime, right? The closest crime to that would have to be charging people with conspiracy.”

She continued:

And there’s something else that bothers me with much of the reporting on this from the beginning, is that you keep seeng high up featured prominently in many articles this line that six members of the Trump campaign have been indicted by the Mueller investigation, but you don’t read in the same space right there, nobody writes, “Although none of them were charged with conspiring with Russia, the central question of the Mueller investigation.

The former CBS reporter added:

That always comes way, way, way down further in the reporting, and that, to me, it’s a very simple fix if you’re really trying to be objective, you can say six people were charged, but none of those charges had anything to do with conspiring with Russia. And then that doesn’t mislead the reader or the viewer because it’s very clear what people were charged with, and it’s not really to conspiracy or the central focus of the Mueller investigation.

Logan ended by declaring that, “as a journalist, I find it disappointing that people will create one impression with their reporting, correct it later, and then claim that they’ve been honest and objective.”

Source: Ex-CBS’s Logan Slams Media Deceptively Slanting Against Trump

March 23, 2019 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

God’s Pattern for His Children Demands it

Or what man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he shall ask for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! (7:9–11)

These verses continue to point to and illustrate the golden rule of verse 12. We are also to love others as we love ourselves because that is a part of God’s life pattern for His children and kingdom citizens. “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma” (Eph. 5:1–2).

If we claim to be God’s children, God’s nature should be reflected in our lives, imperfect as they still are. Jesus here proceeds to show us something of what our heavenly Father’s love is like. First, He gives several illustrations from human family relationships by asking two rhetorical questions.

What man … among you, that is to say, what loving father, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? The obvious answer is no man, no loving father. The crudest of fathers would hardly deceive his own son by giving him a stone to eat that looked like bread. Even if the son discovered the deception before breaking a tooth, his heart would be broken by his father’s cruelty.

Or, Jesus continues, if the son shall ask for a fish, the father will not give him a snake, will he? The idea is not that the snake would be alive and poisonous, and therefore of physical danger to the son. The suggestion is of a snake that is cooked to look like ordinary meat and would, unlike the stone, meet the son’s physical need. But because they were among the unclean animals (Lev. 11:12), snakes were not to be eaten by Jews. A loving Jewish father would not deceive and defile his son into dishonoring the Word of God by tricking him into eating ceremonially unclean food. Our Lord is simply showing that it is not natural for a father to ignore either the physical or the spiritual needs of his son.

In the Luke account Jesus gives the added and more dramatic illustration of a scorpion being substituted for an egg (11:12). Certain Near East scorpions were quite large and resembled a bird’s egg when they curled up to sleep. In this instance, the deceit could cause great physical danger to the son, even an agonizing death.

If you then, being evil—as sinful human fathers—know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! Here is one of the many specific scriptural teachings of man’s fallen, evil nature. Jesus is not speaking of specific fathers who are especially cruel and wicked, but of human fathers in general, all of whom are sinful by nature.

Those who do not know the true God have no divine source to whom they can turn with assurance or trust. Most pagan gods are but larger than life images of the men who made and worship them. Greek mythology tells of Aurora, the goddess of dawn, who fell in love with Tithonus, a mortal youth. When Zeus, the king of gods, promised to grant her any gift she chose for her lover, she asked that Tithonus might live forever. But she had forgotten to ask that he also remain forever young. Therefore when Zeus granted the request, Tithonus was doomed to an eternity of perpetual aging (Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite [5.218–38]). Such are the capricious ways of the gods men make.

But not so with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. As in the previous chapter, Jesus uses the phrase much more to describe God’s love for His children (cf. 6:30). Our divine, loving, merciful, gracious Father who is in heaven has no limit on His treasure and no bounds to the goodness He is willing to bestow on His children who ask Him. The most naturally selfless relationship among human beings is that of parents with their children. We are more likely to sacrifice for our children, even to the point of giving up our lives, than for any other persons in the world. Yet the greatest human parental love cannot compare with God’s.

There is no limit to what our heavenly Father will give to us when we ask in obedience and according to His will. Again we get additional truth from the parallel passage in Luke, which tells us, “How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (11:13).

The truth Jesus proclaims here is that, if imperfect and sinful human fathers so willingly and freely give their children the basics of life, God will infinitely outdo them in measure and in benefit. That is why the children of God are “blessed … with every spiritual blessing” (Eph. 1:3) offered by “the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us (vv. 7–8). If we want God to treat us with loving generosity as His children, we should so treat others, because we are those who bear His likeness.[1]

Our Gracious God

Matthew 7:7–11

If a young man wants to ask his father for something, he will pattern his request on the nature and the temperament of his father. If the father is ill-tempered and stingy, the young man will ask for little. He will take care to present his need in the most winsome and unobjectionable manner. If the father is good-natured and generous, the child will present his need openly and with great confidence.

It is the same spiritually. If a man prays, he will pray in harmony with his view of the God to whom he is praying. If the gods are capricious, as the Greeks believed, then men will come warily and will be on their guard. If the god is vengeful, a man will be fearful. If God is gracious, as Jesus Christ declared the true God to be, then the one who believes in him can come boldly. And he will not fear to ask for good gifts of the One who is declared to be his Father.

It is this that gives the full measure of importance to the verses which form the next section of the Sermon on the Mount, for the verses contain the Lord’s declaration that God is indeed gracious to those who are his spiritual children. He declared, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Matt. 7:7–11). According to these words, God is not harsh, revengeful, or stingy. On the contrary, he is loving, gracious, and merciful; and he is anxious to give the very best gifts to his children.

God’s Children

This passage may be summarized by a few simple propositions. First, it applies only to those who are really God’s children.

This means, of course, that these verses (as well as all others in the Bible that refer to prayer) do not include everyone. They say, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” Who are the “you’s” in this text? The answer is in the full context, for it is clear that they are only those who have God, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, for their Father. The promises do not concern Buddhists. They do not concern Mohammedans. They do not concern nominal Protestants or nominal Roman Catholics. They are promises only for those in whose hearts God has performed the miracle of the new birth, so that while at one time they were without Christ, were aliens to Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, they are now seen to be fellow citizens and members of God’s spiritual household (Eph. 2:12, 19).

Moreover, the promises of this section are additionally restricted to those who are obedient children. This is implied in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, and it is seen more clearly in other passages. Take 1 John 3:22, for example. This verse says, “And receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.” Why does John say that his prayers are always being answered? It is because he is a member of God’s family, of course. But it is also more than that. John says that it is because he keeps God’s commandments and because he seeks to please him. The person who does that can be certain that his prayers will be heard and that all of them will be answered.

I know that someone will say, “But isn’t God the Father of all men? And doesn’t he hear all prayers?” The answer to that is, “No! He is not the Father of all men. And he does not hear the prayers of those who are not in his family.”

Do you know what the Lord Jesus Christ taught in the thirteenth chapter of Luke, verses 24–30? It is almost the exact counterpart of the text we are considering, and the point of Luke’s passage is that there can be no answer to those who are not in God’s family. Jesus had just taught that the only ones who would be saved were those who entered in by the narrow gate. He was referring to faith in himself. He added that many would seek to enter in by other means but would not be able to. He then uttered this great sentence, “Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ ” In both cases there is an asking. In both cases there is a knocking. But in Matthew it is the born-again child of God who is knocking and asking; in Luke it is the unbeliever.

If we are to exercise the spiritual discrimination and judgment that Christ was talking about in verse 6 (“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs”), then we must apply verses 7–11 to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ only. And we must read the verse this way: “Ask [you who are born again] and it will be given to you [who are born again]; seek [you who are born again] and you [who are born again] will find; knock [you who are born again] and the door will be opened to you [who are born again].”


The second obvious teaching of these verses is this: Even if we are Christians, we must ask for the things that God promises. This section of God’s Word contains the positive statement of the principle (“Ask and it will be given to you”). James 4:2 contains the negative statement (“You do not have, because you do not ask God”). But the teaching of both texts is identical. God delights to give good gifts to his children. Hence, if we do not receive them, the fault does not lie in God. It lies in our failure to ask things of him.

I believe that these texts contain the explanation of the weakness and irrelevance of much Christian living and of much contemporary Christianity. Every now and then a minister is asked by some Christian, “Why is it that I cannot seem to find victory in the Christian life? Why does the Bible seem difficult to understand? Why do I still seem in bondage to some besetting sin? Why am I such a poor witness? Why do the high principles of Christian conduct have such little effect on my job and on the affairs of my family?” The answer is that you do not ask God for these blessings. You do not have because you do not ask.

“Why is it,” many a minister is asking, “that I do not have the power of God in my teaching? Why is the Bible so dead? Why are there so few persons being converted? Why are there no leaders to expand and reinforce the ministry?” Again the answer is simply that you are not praying.

“Why are there so few outstanding candidates for the Christian ministry?” many Christian laymen are asking. “Why is the church so weak, the preaching so poor, our impact upon our society so ineffective, our goals so unrealized?” Again God answers, “You are neglecting your prayer life.” You do not have because you are not asking.

Don’t these words describe the churches as we know them today? Don’t they describe many of us personally? Dr. Reuben A. Torrey, who makes many of these points quite eloquently in his book The Power of Prayer, writes correctly, “We do not live in a praying age. We live in an age of hustle and bustle, of man’s efforts and man’s determination, of man’s confidence in himself and in his own power to achieve things, an age of human organization, and human machinery, and human push, and human scheming, and human achievement; which in the things of God means no real achievement at all.… What we need is not so much some new organization, some new wheel, but ‘the Spirit of the living creature in the wheels’ we already possess.”

What do we lack in our own lives and in the church generally? Is it wisdom to deal with this sophisticated and godly world, to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, to present the claims of Christ intelligibly and with success? If it is, then we should ask wisdom of God. James says, “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).

Do we lack suitable candidates for church office, for missions? Do we lack Sunday school teachers or church workers? If so, it is because we are not asking. Jesus said, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field” (Matt. 9:37–38).

Moreover, isn’t it significant that these great remarks about prayer occur toward the end of the Sermon on the Mount after the long list of things that should characterize our lives as Christians? We read of purity of heart, and we lack it. We read of meekness, and we lack that. We lack integrity, love, trust in God, humility, discrimination, and all the other things Christ mentions. Isn’t it true that Jesus mentions prayer again precisely at this point just so that we may be encouraged to ask God for these things? Prayer has not changed. God has not changed. His ear is as quick to hear and his arm as strong to save as ever. Then, let us ask!

Torrey writes, “Prayer can do everything that God can do, and as God can do anything, prayer is omnipotent. No one can stand against the man who knows how to pray and who meets all the conditions of prevailing prayer and who really prays.” He adds that this is true because “the Lord God Omnipotent works for him and works through him.”

Prevailing Prayer

This brings us to our next point. Christ did not only say that we were to ask for God’s blessings; he also said that we were to go on asking.

In the Greek language, which lies behind our New Testament, there are two basic kinds of imperatives. There is the aorist imperative which is a command to do one particular thing at one specific point in time, and there is a present imperative which is a command not only to do that thing once but to go on doing it indefinitely. For example, if we were to say to a person driving a car, “Stop at that light,” stop would be an aorist imperative; it would refer to only one action. However, if one were then to say, “And don’t forget, always stop for the red lights,” in this sentence stop would be a present imperative; for it would refer to something to be done repeatedly. The imperatives in this section of Christ’s sermon—“ask,” “seek,” and “knock”—are present imperatives. Hence, they are a command to pray repeatedly, to persist in prayer. They are a command not to become discouraged.

I know that there is something about the idea of prevailing prayer that on the surface at least seems contrary to a Calvinistic way of thinking, but the conflict is only superficial. In two of Jesus’ parables there is the story of a person who prevailed in a request by means of perseverance. In Luke 11:5–10, there is the story of a man who lacked food to feed a guest who arrived at his home at midnight. He went to his neighbor. At first the neighbor did not want to be bothered, but at last he gave the things which were needed because of the man’s persistence. Jesus then repeated his teaching from the Sermon on the Mount, saying, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” In Luke 18:1–8 Jesus told of a widow who gained justice from a dishonest judge through a similar course of action. He then added, “And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off” (v. 7). Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “Pray continually” (1 Thess. 5:17). He wrote to the Romans, “I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me” (Rom. 15:30).

In all these texts the emphasis falls on the discipline of prayer and persistence. Persistence! That is the thing. We are to realize our need and then have persistence in seeking its fulfillment.

God’s Spirit

As we do this we are also to pray knowing that God sees our needs more than we do and is actually far ahead of us in fulfilling them. In fact, this is one ministry, perhaps one of the greatest ministries, of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will” (Rom. 8:26–27).

Do you see what this means? It means that God the Holy Spirit not only dwells within us, hearing what we say and then responding to it. He also takes an initiative in prayer, probing our hearts to see our greatest needs, and then interpreting our prayers in that light to God our heavenly Father. God loves us. He wants to help us. Thus, he searches us out to see what he can do for us.

When my sisters and I were very young I remember what great difficulty we had in our home to discover before Christmas or before my father’s birthday what we could do for him. I am sure he had obvious needs, but to us at the time it seemed as if he were the only man in the world who had everything. He liked to fish, but he seemed to have all the equipment he needed for fishing. He liked to hunt, but we could not help him there. We were always at great pains to discover some need that we could fulfill for him. If he would ever drop a hint of some need, we were then quite delighted if we could respond to the need and give him the thing he desired.

In exactly this way we are told that our gracious God and heavenly Father searches our hearts to see what we need, and then he delights to answer the need out of his inexhaustible storehouse of blessings.[2]

Ask and It Will Be Given

Matthew 7:7–12

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matt. 7:7–8)

We all need a little encouragement from time to time. Someone once told me that a particularly demanding supervisor had written just two words on a report he had written: “Good work.” There was nothing more, simply “Good work,” but that comment made his week. When someone is looking for a job, the anxiety level can be very high. If he or she has gone to a couple of interviews and come home empty, a positive word can lift the spirits: “You are so talented; I know someone will recognize it soon.” When we face a daunting task, it helps to know that someone thinks we are capable. And if we are ready for a task, it is a blessing that a capable friend is willing to help.

This kind of encouragement is just what we have in Matthew 7. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus bombards his disciples with uncompromising demands. The self-aware reader knows he cannot fulfill all of them. Jesus forbids anger and forbids lust. He commands that we keep our every word, that we give freely to those who would borrow. He prohibits worrying and forbids boasting. He says, “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). He says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48).

The breadth and depth of this standard would lead us to despair, if Jesus did not pause to bring encouragement. Fortunately, Jesus does strengthen his disciples’ resolve at crucial moments in his message. He invites us to lay aside our fears. As he tells his disciples how to live, he also explains how they may reach toward his standards.

For example, in 6:19–24, Jesus tells his disciples how to think about wealth and how to use it. Then he adds crucial encouragement. If we seek first the kingdom, the King will provide the food and shelter we need to live. Therefore, we need not be anxious about tomorrow, because God will take care of it (6:25–34).

Then Jesus tells his disciples how to regard their neighbors (7:1–6). There is a kind of neighbor whose lawless, feckless life invites criticism and judgment. His moral failings are obvious, but even his clothes and manners are an affront. But Jesus tells us to refrain from hasty judgment. Perhaps if we remove our own sins first, then we can help our neighbor with his.

But it is no easy thing to withhold judgment or to still a critical tongue. Beyond the negative effects on others, censorious people often fail to see how Jesus’ word speaks to their flaws. Jesus says we should apply the law to ourselves first, confessing to God our sin, our weakness, and our inability to reform ourselves. If we ask, he will listen and act. Hear the poetic balance and repetition in Jesus’ promise (Matt. 7:7–8):

Ask and it will be given to you;

seek and you will find;

knock and the door will be opened to you.

For everyone who asks receives;

he who seeks finds;

and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Furthermore, Jesus continues, the Father knows how to give good gifts, especially gifts of grace, to those who ask (7:9–11). We need that grace, for discipleship is not easy. The road that Jesus traveled was hard, and when he asks us to follow him, he bids us to take the hard road, too (7:13–14). Jesus’ road is hard and his standards are high—indeed, they are beyond us. But, as we saw, the same Jesus who delivered these laws also came to deliver those who do not and cannot keep his laws. He came to give commands and to redeem those who violate them.

Ask, Seek, and Knock

Jesus says simply, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find.” When Jesus says that “it will be given” and “the door will be opened,” he means that the Father will give us aid. He will open the door (7:7).

Jesus draws our attention to the gifts that God gives in answer to prayer by mentioning them first and last in this passage. The first word is, “Ask and it will be given to you” (7:7). The last word is, “Your Father in heaven [will] give good gifts to those who ask him” (7:11).

Further, Jesus wants us to ask, seek, and knock continually. This is not clear in English translations, but the original text uses present imperatives for “ask … seek … knock,” and that grammatical form in Greek signifies that an act should be performed continually. Scripture often encourages constant prayers for God’s blessing. The Lord says, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:13). Jesus says, “I will do whatever you ask in my name.… You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (John 14:13–14). Finally, James says, “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).

This teaching can be understood in two ways. We could put the accent on the one who asks and say, “Persist long enough and you will get what you desire.” This “beggar’s wisdom” suggests that our petitions can wear God out, so that he finally grants us whatever we want, even if he was initially disinclined to do so.

But Jesus places the emphasis on the God who hears, not on the man or woman who asks. He says that God loves his children and knows how to give them good gifts. If we ask, the Father will give what he knows we need. He says this three ways, and each seems to build on the other:

  • “Ask” is a general term. In context, it means “Ask God in prayer.”
  • “Seek” implies that we may not know exactly what we are looking for or precisely how to pray (Rom. 8:26). A child asks a mother who is close at hand, but when the mother is not visible, the child seeks her. When we seek God, we will find him and discover what we should desire.
  • “Knock” implies that we seek something that is inaccessible to us. We have tried and failed to attain something, to open a door. We cannot, but God can and will open it, if it is right for us.

Jesus follows the threefold command with a threefold promise. We should ask, seek, and knock because “everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matt. 7:8), for God will open it. Martin Luther explains that God “knows we are timid and shy, that we feel unworthy … to present our needs to God.… We think that God is so great and we are so tiny that we do not dare to pray.… That is why Christ wants to … remove our doubts, and to have us go ahead confidently and boldly.”

If we follow the pattern of Scripture, we will pray for God’s material provision and for his spiritual gifts, with an emphasis on the latter. It is tempting for pastors to pray about buildings and budgets, but it would be better for us to pray for the spiritual life of our churches. Christian leaders might pray for their local church like this: that those who seek Christ will find him here, that the weary and lonely will find a welcome and a home, and that if we grow we will still welcome and disciple people one by one. We should pray that all will grow in knowledge and in obedience to God, that all will engage the culture, and that every teacher, lawyer, and businessman or woman will strive to serve God and neighbor at work. When things go wrong in the church, we should pray that we will trust one another and think the best of each other, preferring to think that an offense is inadvertent, not malicious (cf. 1 Cor. 13:7). We can pray that we will not probe old wounds and pick at the scabs that cover cuts from long ago, so that God can heal us and dark days may recede. God hears such prayers. He knows how to give good gifts to his church.

Fathers on Earth and the Father in Heaven

Jesus wants to assure us that God hears us and will give us what is good. He begins by asking a couple of rhetorical questions about the way human fathers behave. “Which one of you,” he asks, “if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?” (Matt. 7:9–10 ESV). Sadly, there are a few such parents, but Jesus is thinking of ordinary parents. In the Greek, it is clear that Jesus expects a negative reply.4 If a child asks for a loaf of bread, no father would say, “Here is something else that is earth-toned and round—a stone.” And if a child asks for a fish, no father would say, “Here, have something else with scales—a snake.”

Jesus then draws his conclusion, using a form of argument that he likes to use, called the lesser to the greater. It goes like this: if even sinful human fathers (the lesser) give good gifts to their children when asked, then the wise and good Lord (the greater) will certainly give good gifts to his children when asked (7:11).

This simple argument contains vital lessons about people and about Jesus. First, when Jesus says, “If you then, who are evil …” (ESV), he assumes, as the whole Bible does, that all humans are sinful. We are members of a race of sinners. We are radically selfish, inclined to rebel against God and to do evil toward our fellow man. But Jesus says that even sinful people can do what is right. Their hearts may be dark, but parents still care tenderly for their children. Fathers do not typically mock their sons, nor do mothers betray their daughters. Some parents do abuse their children. Still, as sinful as fathers are, few play devilish tricks on their children. And as sinful as mothers are, few offer their children inedible food. If human parents, crippled by evil, still treat their children well, then God, who is good, will certainly give good gifts to his children.

This passage tells us something important about Jesus. We know that Jesus identifies with us in our weakness, but here we see that he does not identify with us in our sinfulness. Jesus does not say “we who are evil,” but “you who are evil.”

Further, Jesus does not say that God gives us all we ask for or all we want. Rather, he gives us “good gifts.” “Ask and it will be given” is not an absolute promise, as if God must give us whatever we ask. When we pray, we do not rub a magic lamp. What a burden it would be to know that we would receive everything we sought in prayer! The thought would paralyze the prayers of a sensitive Christian. Who would be wise enough to pray if God gave us whatever we asked for, whenever we asked?

Jesus knows the difference between wise and foolish requests. Almost all of us are now thankful that the Lord declined some request we once made. Sometimes, therefore, we receive less than we ask. One summer on a road trip, our family played the game “If you were a superhero, what super power would you choose?” Naturally enough, choices included the ability to fly or the capacity to move forward or backward in time. I chose the power to move at the speed of light. That fall, after a physics class, one of my children told me, “Dad, did you know that to accelerate to the speed of light, an object must also have infinite mass and infinite impulse force?” Infinite mass and impulse force sound impressive, but I doubt that I would actually want either one. My interest in moving at the speed of light was, therefore, misguided. I would not want everything my request entailed. So it is with our requests, which explains why the Lord sometimes denies our appeals.

On the other hand, he sometimes gives us more than we seek. Solomon, we recall, sought wisdom to rule well. This pleased the Lord, who said he would give Solomon “a wise and discerning heart.” Then, because Solomon craved wisdom rather than riches or long life, the Lord determined to give him the other blessings as well (1 Kings 3:5–15). He gave Solomon more than he asked.

In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord wants to give us his kingdom and his righteousness. The Bible, incidentally, never shows anyone praying for happiness, never tells us to pray for happiness, and never promises that we will be happy. It does promise that God will make us holy. In Luke 11:13, Jesus says that the Father will “give the Holy Spirit” to those who ask. He grants what we need to grow in holiness, not necessarily to have a carefree life. Paul says, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:25–27).

We need this holiness. In Matthew 7:11, Jesus calmly assumes that we are “evil,” even though we can do good things. Evil parents “forget themselves” and give liberally to their children, for God drops into human hearts “a portion of his goodness.” But these good deeds do not remove our sinfulness. Therefore, when we pray, we should first seek forgiveness of sin and deliverance from evil. Of all God’s gifts, this is supreme: Jesus bore the punishment we deserve for our evil deeds. Then he offered to wrap us in his holiness, his good deeds, if we believe in him. Then, when God looks upon us, he sees Christ’s righteousness, not our sin.

On the Duties of Parents

Since our passage describes the goodness of God the Father, we may consider what makes human parents good. After all, human parents should care for their children as God cares for his. The Bible assumes that parents give good gifts to their children, but we must define those gifts correctly. First, parents provide food (good healthy food, not just anything), clothing, and shelter for their children (1 Tim. 5:8; 6:8). Second, parents owe children an education, both academic and practical, that prepares them for a God-given vocation. Wise parents notice their child’s skills and interests and nurture them. We teach them to do the small chores and the larger jobs that let them discover where they excel. Third, parents should instruct their children in the Christian faith and Christian living. On the first two points, our culture largely agrees with Scripture, but in the latter sphere, it will substitute any soul-enriching experience—piano lessons, travel to Europe, inner-city service projects, a spot on the soccer team or the debate team—for specifically Christian instruction.

Even as the Father in heaven brings us to spiritual maturity, so godly parents will offer their children every opportunity to attain spiritual maturity. They should read the Bible and pray with their children. At home, the principles of Christian faith and life should often be on our lips, as we tell our children about Jesus and his love. Moses told parents to talk about God’s laws throughout the day: “Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (Deut. 6:7).

Christian nurture also occurs within the Christian community. On the Lord’s Day, parents bring their children to Christian education designed for students and to worship designed for all ages. Wise parents collaborate with pastors and teachers. They help their children pay attention by quizzing them afterward: “What did you learn in Sunday school? What did you learn in church?” They know that most teachers offer excellent instruction, but that some present moralistic versions (or perversions) of the faith. Parents review sermons because reasonably bright children can surely grasp leading points of a sermon (linked, perhaps, to an illustration) by the age of ten.

Like the Father in heaven, Christian parents also try to discern when they should and when they should not give their children what they ask. Prosperous parents are prone to pamper their children, indulging their desires simply because they can. Parents of ordinary means may be tempted simply to pick a similar family and match what they do. Lest loving parents become doting parents, we need to teach our children the benefits of work, stewardship, and patience. In our culture, parents confuse love with indulgence, and instant gratification with provision. Christian parents make God their model. As he bestows gifts on his children, he keeps material and spiritual gifts in perfect equilibrium.

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is widely cited and widely abused. An adult twist on the Golden Rule says, “Whoever has the gold makes the rules.” A child’s version says, “Do one to others before they do one to you.” But a proper understanding of the Golden Rule begins with its context. Matthew 7:1–11 lists various obligations of a disciple. With our brothers, we should offer help, not judgment. With God, we pray with confidence, knowing he will care for us. But the same verses also sum up Jesus’ teaching. After hearing all his exposition of the life of discipleship, Jesus says, apply it to yourself, not others. Take the log out of your own eye, instead of poking around in other people’s eyes (7:1–6). Further, when we hear all the commands and feel overwhelmed, we must ask God for help (7:7–11). If we should forget our duties to our neighbors, we can remember this summary: “Do to others what you would have them do to you” (7:12).

Jesus does not mean that we should do to others whatever they want. Two immoral people could use “Do unto others” as a rationale for indulging each other’s illicit desires. Jesus expects his disciples to want, for themselves and for others, what he wants for us.

Calvin thought that the Golden Rule is another way of saying that we should be just and fair toward all. So many quarrels occur because men “knowingly and willingly trample justice [toward others] under their feet,” while demanding perfect justice for themselves. Wars between nations and wars between individuals both begin this way. All of us can “explain minutely and ingeniously what ought to be done” for us. We should apply the same skill and wisdom to the needs of others.

Sadly, we can so fix our attention on our own needs and desires that we are hardly aware of the needs of others. The whole Bible sets the standard for what we owe others. But then, for our benefit, Jesus gives us summaries of the Law and the Prophets. So, to paraphrase slightly, Jesus says, “Do for others what your sense of justice would require others to do for you.” Later, he simply says, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). But we are quick to think first of ourselves, and thus we fail to keep the standard. Consider, for example, the game that many families play after dinner, called “Who worked hardest today and so should be excused from household chores?”

We might wish we could do for others what we ask for ourselves, but we know we cannot keep it up. We briefly tried an experimental form of discipline in our house. When one child caused serious harm to another, we made the offending child a “servant,” bound to obey the other for perhaps an hour to do whatever the “master” wished. In this way, the theory went, we would reduce the incidence of recklessly harmful behavior. But the experiment never worked. No one could keep up the relationship for more than a couple of minutes. I suspect that nearly all of us would fail if we had to play that game.

Once again, therefore, Jesus’ laws lead us to see our sin and our need for grace. We simply cannot keep his law. We cannot stop judging others for their failings. We cannot keep even the simplest summary of his teaching: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” What then shall we do? We return to the first word in our passage. We must ask God for mercy to forgive and ask him to make us new.

Then, Jesus says, it will be given to us. The Lord will give us his mercy, the forgiveness of our sins. The same Jesus who laid down all these laws also gave his life for those who would break them. He will give us his Spirit, so that we might see our neighbor with more of the eyes of Jesus, the eyes of love, and might serve that neighbor and serve our Lord.[3]

11. Your Father will give good things. This is expressly mentioned by Christ, that believers may not give way to foolish and improper desires in prayer. We know how great influence, in this respect, is exerted by the excesses and presumption of our flesh. There is nothing which we do not allow ourselves to ask from God; and if he does not humour our folly, we exclaim against him. Christ therefore enjoins us to submit our desires to the will of God, that he may give us nothing more than he knows to be advantageous. We must not think that he takes no notice of us, when he does not answer our wishes: for he has a right to distinguish what we actually need. All our affections being blind, the rule of prayer must be sought from the word of God: for we are not competent judges of so weighty a matter. He who desires to approach God with the conviction that he will be heard, must learn to restrain his heart from asking any thing that is not agreeable to his will. “Ye ask, and receive not, (says James, 4:3,) because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.”

Instead of good things (ἀγαθὰ) in the last clause, Luke says the Holy Spirit. This does not exclude other benefits, but points out what we ought chiefly to ask: for we ought never to forget the exhortation, Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all other things shall be added to you, (Matth. 6:33.) It is the duty of the children of God, when they engage in prayer, to strip themselves of earthly affections, and to rise to meditation on the spiritual life. In this way, they will set little value on food and clothing, as compared to the earnest and pledge of their adoption, (Rom. 8:15; Eph. 1:14:) and when God has given so valuable a treasure, he will not refuse smaller favours.[4]

9–11 Another a fortiori argument (see comments at 6:25) is introduced. In Greek both v. 9 and v. 10 begin with ē (“or”), probably meaning “or to put the matter another way, which of you, etc.” No parent would deceive a child asking for bread or fish by giving him a similar-looking but inedible stone or a dangerous snake. The point at issue is not merely the parents’ willingness to give but their willingness to give good gifts—even though they themselves are evil. Jesus presupposes the sinfulness (v. 11) of human nature (himself exempted; “you,” he says, not “we”) but implicitly acknowledges this does not mean all human beings are as bad as they could be or utterly evil in all they do. people are evil; they are self-centered, not God-centered. This taints all they do. Nevertheless, they can give good gifts to their children. How much more, then, will the heavenly Father, who is pure goodness without alloy, give good gifts to those who ask?

Four observations will tie up some loose ends.

  1. Lachs (“Textual Observations,” 109–10) insists that the “concept that man is evil from birth, born in sin, and similar pronouncements, is a later theological development” and therefore proposes to emend the text of an alleged Semitic original. While it is true that rabbinic literature does not normally portray man as inherently evil, it is false to say that the idea arose only after Jesus, presumably with Paul (cf. Pss 14:1–3; 51; 53:1–3; Ecc 7:20). Jesus regularly assumes the sinfulness of humanity (cf. TDNT, 6:554–55). Therefore, the rabbinic parallels to vv. 7–11 are of limited value. They stress the analogy of the caring parent, but not on the supposition that the human parent is evil.
  2. The fatherhood-of-God language is reserved for God’s relationship with Jesus’ disciples (see comments at 5:45). The blessings promised as a result of these prayers are not the blessings of common grace (cf. 5:45) but of the kingdom. And though we must ask for them, it is not because God must be informed (6:8) but because this is the Father’s way of training his family.
  3. What is fundamentally at stake is a person’s picture of God. God must not be thought of as a reluctant stranger who can be cajoled or bullied into bestowing his gifts (6:7–8), as a malicious tyrant who takes vicious glee in the tricks he plays (7:9–10), or even as an indulgent grandfather who provides everything requested of him. He is the heavenly Father, the God of the kingdom, who graciously and willingly bestows the good gifts of the kingdom in answer to prayer. See Jayhoon Yang, “Ask, Seek and Knock? A Reconsideration of Matthew 7:7–12,” ExpTim 119 (2008): 170–75.
  4. On the “good gifts” as spiritual gifts (cf. Ro 3:8; 10:15; Heb 9:11; 10:1) and the parallel reference to the Holy Spirit (Lk 11:13), see Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 469–70.[5]

7:7–11 / Earlier in the sermon (6:5–15) Matthew brought together a portion of Jesus’ teaching on the subject of prayer. Now he expands it by stressing how important it is for believers to be persistent in prayer. The present imperatives, “keep on asking,” “keep on seeking,” and “keep on knocking” (Williams) indicate that prayer is not a semi-passive ritual in which we occasionally share our concerns with God. In Luke, the narrative is immediately preceded by the story of the man awakened from sleep at midnight by an importunate neighbor who needs bread to feed a guest (Luke 11:5–8). Prayer requires stamina and persistence. It is those who keep on asking that receive and those who keep on seeking that find. God opens the door to those who keep on knocking. Divine delays do not indicate reluctance on God’s part. In the time of waiting we learn patience, and the intensity of our desire is put to the test. God, through Jeremiah, told the exiles in Babylon, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:13). It is those who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” that are satisfied (Matt. 5:6).

Jesus now reasons that since earthly fathers who are less than perfect will not mock a child who asks for food, does it not follow that God will give good things to those who ask? Should his son ask for bread a father will not hand him a stone. Should he ask for a fish he will not be given a snake (the reference is to some eel-like fish without scales that, according to Lev. 11:12, was not to be eaten). Though you are evil (v. 11), says Jesus, you know how to provide your children with what is best for them. How much more will God, the heavenly Father, who is perfect in righteousness and love? Schweizer writes that “human maliciousness is here simply presupposed” and that this runs counter to the “widespread romantic belief that man is innately good and need only be left to himself with as few restrictions as possible for everything to improve” (pp. 173–74). Jesus is not making a theological statement about absolute human goodness but is drawing a comparison between parents’ natural acts of kindness toward their children and the perfection of God’s generosity toward those who seek his favor.[6]

Our attitude to our heavenly Father (7–11)

It seems natural that Jesus should move on from our relationship with our fellow men to our relationship with our heavenly Father, the more so because our Christian duty of discrimination (not judging others, not casting pearls before pigs, and being helpful without being hypocritical) is much too difficult for us without divine grace.

  • The promises Jesus makes

This passage is not the first instruction on prayer in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus has already warned us against pharisaic hypocrisy and pagan formalism, and has given us his own model prayer. Now, however, he actively encourages us to pray by giving us some very gracious promises. For ‘nothing is better adapted to excite us to prayer than a full conviction that we shall be heard’. Or again, ‘He knows that we are timid and shy, that we feel unworthy and unfit to present our needs to God … We think that God is so great and we are so tiny that we do not dare to pray … That is why Christ wants to lure us away from such timid thoughts, to remove our doubts, and to have us go ahead confidently and boldly.’2

Jesus seeks to imprint his promises on our mind and memory by the hammer-blows of repetition. First, his promises are attached to direct commands: Ask … seek … knock … (7). These may deliberately be in an ascending scale of urgency. Richard Glover suggests that a child, if his mother is near and visible, asks; if she is neither, he seeks; while if she is inaccessible in her room, he knocks.3 Be that as it may, all three verbs are present imperatives and indicate the persistence with which we should make our requests known to God. Secondly, the promises are expressed in universal statements: for every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened (8).

Thirdly, Jesus illustrates his promises by a homely parable (9–11). He envisages a situation with which all his hearers will have been daily familiar, namely a child coming to his father with a request. If he asks for bread, will he be given something which looks a bit like it but is in fact disastrously different, e.g. a stone instead of a loaf, or a snake instead of a fish? That is, if the child asks for something wholesome to eat (bread or fish), will he receive instead something unwholesome, either inedible (a stone) or positively harmful (a poisonous snake)? Of course not! Parents, even though they are evil, i.e. selfish by nature, still love their children and give them only good gifts. Notice that Jesus here assumes, even asserts, the inherent sinfulness of human nature. At the same time, he does not deny that bad men are capable of doing good. On the contrary, evil parents give good gifts to their children, for ‘God drops into their hearts a portion of his goodness’. What Jesus is saying is that even when they are doing good, following the noble instincts of parenthood and caring for their children, even then they do not escape the designation ‘evil’, for that is what human beings are.

So the force of the parable lies rather in a contrast than in a comparison between God and men. It is another a fortiori or ‘how much more’ argument: if human parents (although evil) know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more will our heavenly Father (who is not evil but wholly good) give good things to those who ask him? (11). ‘For what would he not now give to sons when they ask, when he has already granted this very thing, namely, that they might be sons?’ There is no doubt that our prayers are transformed when we remember that the God we are coming to is ‘Abba, Father’, and infinitely good and kind.

Professor Jeremias has demonstrated the novelty of this teaching of Jesus. He writes that, with the help of his assistants, he has carefully examined ‘the prayer literature of ancient Judah—a large, rich literature, all too little explored’, but that ‘in no place in this immense literature is this invocation of God as Abba to be found … Abba was an everyday word, a homely family word. No Jew would have dared to address God in this manner. Jesus did it always … and authorizes his disciples to repeat the word Abba after him.’ What could be simpler than this concept of prayer? If we belong to Christ, God is our Father, we are his children, and prayer is coming to him with our requests. The trouble is that for many of us it seems too simple, even simplistic. In our sophistication we say we cannot believe it, and in any case it does not altogether tally with our experience. So we turn from Christ’s prayer-promises to our prayer-problems.

  • The problems men raise

Confronted by the straightforward promises of Jesus, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find, people raise several objections which we need now to consider.

  1. Prayer is unseemly. ‘This encouragement to pray presents a false picture of God. It implies that he needs either to be told what we lack or to be bullied into giving it, whereas Jesus himself said earlier that our heavenly Father knows it and cares for us anyway. Besides, he surely cannot be bothered with our petty affairs. Why should we suppose that his gifts are dependent on our asking? Do human parents wait before supplying their children’s needs until they ask for them?’

To this we reply that the reason why God’s giving depends on our asking is neither because he is ignorant until we inform him nor because he is reluctant until we persuade him. The reason has to do with us, not with him; the question is not whether he is ready to give, but whether we are ready to receive. So in prayer we do not ‘prevail on’ God, but rather prevail on ourselves to submit to God. True, the language of ‘prevailing on God’ is often used in regard to prayer, but it is an accommodation to human weakness. Even when Jacob ‘prevailed on God’, what really happened is that God prevailed over him, bringing him to the point of surrender when he was able to receive the blessing which God had all the time been longing to give him.

The truth is that the heavenly Father never spoils his children. He does not shower us with gifts whether we want them or not, whether we are ready for them or not. Instead he waits until we recognize our need and turn to him in humility. This is why he says Ask, and it will be given you, and why James added, ‘You do not have because you do not ask.’ Prayer, then, is not ‘unseemly’; it is the very way God himself has chosen for us to express our conscious need of him and our humble dependence on him.

  1. Prayer is unnecessary. This second objection arises more from experience than from theology. Thoughtful Christians look round them and see lots of people getting on fine without prayer. Indeed they seem to receive without prayer the very same things that we receive with it. They get what they need by working for it, not by praying for it. The farmer gets a good crop by labour, not prayer. The mother gets her baby by medical skill, not prayer. The family balances its budget by the wage-earning of dad and perhaps others, not by prayer. ‘Surely,’ we may be tempted to say, ‘this proves that prayer doesn’t make an ounce of difference; it’s so much wasted breath.’

But wait a minute! In thinking about this question, we need to distinguish between the gifts of God as Creator and his gifts as Father, or between his creation-gifts and his redemption-gifts. It is perfectly true that he gives certain gifts (harvest, babies, food, life) whether people pray or not, whether they believe or not. He gives to all life and breath. He sends rain from heaven and fruitful seasons to all. He makes his sun rise on the evil and the good alike. He ‘visits’ a mother when she conceives and later gives birth. None of these gifts is dependent on whether people acknowledge their Creator or pray to him.

But God’s redemption-gifts are different. God does not bestow salvation on all alike, but ‘bestows his riches upon all who call on him. For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” ’ The same applies to post-salvation blessings, the ‘good things’ which Jesus says the Father gives his children. It is not material blessings that he is referring to here, but spiritual blessings—daily forgiveness, deliverance from evil, peace, the increase of faith, hope and love, in fact the indwelling work of ‘the Holy Spirit’ as the comprehensive blessing of God, which is how Luke renders ‘good things’.3 For these gifts we must certainly pray.

The Lord’s Prayer, which Jesus taught earlier in the Sermon, brings together both kinds of gift, for ‘daily bread’ is a creation-gift, whereas ‘forgiveness’ and ‘deliverance’ are redemption-gifts. How is it, then, that they can be combined in the same prayer? Probably the answer is this. We pray for daily bread not because we fear we will starve otherwise (since millions get their daily bread without ever praying for it or saying grace before meals) but because we know that ultimately it comes from God and because as his children it is appropriate regularly to acknowledge our physical dependence on him. We pray for forgiveness and deliverance, however, because these gifts are given only in answer to prayer, and because without them we would be lost. So prayer is not unnecessary.

  1. Prayer is unproductive. The third problem is the obvious corollary to the second. People argue that prayer is unnecessary because God gives to many who do not ask, and that it is unproductive because he fails to give to many who do. ‘I prayed to pass an exam, but failed it. I prayed to be healed of an illness, and it got worse. I prayed for peace, but the world is filled with the noise of war. Prayer doesn’t work!’—This is the familiar problem of unanswered prayer.

The best way to approach this problem is to remember that the promises of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are not unconditional. A moment’s thought will convince us of this. It is absurd to suppose that the promise ‘Ask, and it shall be given you’ is an absolute pledge with no strings attached; that ‘Knock, and it will be opened to you’ is an ‘Open, Sesame’ to every closed door without exception; and that by the waving of a prayer wand any wish will be granted and every dream will come true. The idea is ridiculous. It would turn prayer into magic, the person who prays into a magician like Aladdin, and God into our servant who appears instantly to do our bidding like Aladdin’s genie every time we rub our little prayer lamp. In addition, this concept of prayer would place an impossible strain on every sensitive Christian if he knew that he was certain to get everything he asked. ‘If it were the case’, writes Alec Motyer, ‘that whatever we ask, God was pledged to give, then I for one would never pray again, because I would not have sufficient confidence in my own wisdom to ask God for anything; and I think if you consider it you will agree. It would impose an intolerable burden on frail human wisdom if by his prayer-promises God was pledged to give whatever we ask, when we ask it, and in exactly the terms we ask. How could we bear the burden?’

Perhaps we could put the matter in this way: being good, our heavenly Father gives only good gifts to his children; being wise as well, he knows which gifts are good and which are not. We have already heard Jesus say that human parents would never give a stone or snake to their children who ask for bread or fish. But what if the children (through ignorance or folly) were actually to ask for a stone or a snake? What then? Doubtless an extremely irresponsible parent might grant the child’s request, but the great majority of parents would be too wise and loving. Certainly our heavenly Father would never give us something harmful, even if we asked for it urgently and repeatedly, for the simple reason that he gives his children only ‘good gifts’. So then if we ask for good things, he grants them; if we ask for things which are not good (either not good in themselves, or not good for us or for others, directly or indirectly, immediately or ultimately) he denies them; and only he knows the difference. We can thank God that the granting of our needs is conditional—not only on our asking, seeking and knocking, but also on whether what we desire by asking, seeking and knocking is good. Thank God he answers prayer. Thank God he also sometimes denies our requests. ‘I thank God’, writes Dr Lloyd-Jones ‘that He is not prepared to do anything that I may chance to ask Him … I am profoundly grateful to God that He did not grant me certain things for which I asked, and that He shut certain doors in my face.’1

  • The lessons we learn

Prayer sounds very simple when Jesus teaches about it. Just Ask …, seek …, knock …, and in each case you will be answered. This is a deceptive simplicity, however; much lies behind it. First, prayer presupposes knowledge. Since God gives gifts only if they accord with his will, we have to take pains to discover his will—by Scripture meditation and by the exercise of a Christian mind schooled by Scripture meditation. Secondly, prayer presupposes faith. It is one thing to know God’s will; it is another to humble ourselves before him and express our confidence that he is able to cause his will to be done. Thirdly, prayer presupposes desire. We may know God’s will and believe he can perform it, and still not desire it. Prayer is the chief means God has ordained by which to express our deepest desires. This is the reason why the ‘ask—seek—knock’ commands are in the present imperative and in an ascending scale to challenge our perseverance.

Thus, before we ask, we must know what to ask for and whether it accords with God’s will; we must believe God can grant it; and we must genuinely want to receive. Then the gracious promises of Jesus will come true.[7]

[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1985). Matthew (Vol. 1, pp. 444–446). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Boice, J. M. (2002). The Sermon on the Mount: an expositional commentary (pp. 235–240). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[3] Doriani, D. M. (2008). Matthew & 2. (R. D. Phillips, P. G. Ryken, & D. M. Doriani, Eds.) (Vol. 1, pp. 281–290). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.

[4] Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Vol. 1, pp. 353–354). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[5] Carson, D. A. (2010). Matthew. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew–Mark (Revised Edition) (Vol. 9, pp. 222–223). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[6] Mounce, R. H. (2011). Matthew (pp. 65–66). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[7] Stott, J. R. W., & Stott, J. R. W. (1985). The message of the Sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7): Christian counter-culture (pp. 183–190). Leicester; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Top Weekly Stories from ChristianNews.net for 03/23/2019

Another 10 Christians Killed in Kaduna State as Carnage Continues in Nigeria   Mar 18, 2019 08:20 pm

Photo Credit: Johnny Marou JOS, Nigeria (Morning Star News) – Muslim Fulani herdsmen killed 10 Christians in southern Kaduna state, Nigeria on Saturday (March 16), bringing the lives lost in the past five weeks to 140 with 160 houses destroyed, sources said. “We were all asleep in our various homes when at about 4 a.m. , we heard gunshots everywhere in…

Continue reading the story

6 Christians Killed, 470 Flee in Congo Attack   Mar 17, 2019 07:15 pm

(Open Doors USA) — Six Christians, including three women and a 9-year-old child, have died in an attack in the largely Christian village of Kalau near the city of Beni in the North Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The attack that sent almost 500 Central Africans fleeing for their lives lasted four hours from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. According to field…

Continue reading the story

Francis Chan Defends Speaking at Events With False Teachers to Be ‘Most Effective,’ But to Exercise More ‘Caution’ and ‘Safeguards’   Mar 18, 2019 01:09 pm

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Speaker and author Francis Chan has responded to concerns surrounding photographs that recently surfaced of Chan with Todd White and Benny Hinn at “The Send,” whose practices and teachings are at odds with biblical orthodoxy. Chan advised that he will still attend “certain events” with the intention of being the “most effective” in…

Continue reading the story

UK Police Admit Arrested Street Preacher Was Transported Out of Area to Prevent Him From Returning to Speak   Mar 17, 2019 06:28 pm

LONDON — Police in the United Kingdom have admitted that they drove an arrested street preacher miles away from the location where he had been speaking in order to prevent him from returning. “As the man indicated that he wished to continue his activities at Southgate tube station, officers felt it necessary to take the man some distance from the station in order…

Continue reading the story

Roswell, New Mexico Passes Resolution Declaring Human Life is ‘Precious to God’ and ‘Must Always Be Protected’   Mar 19, 2019 01:59 pm

Photo Credit: Josh Willink/Pexels ROSWELL, N.M. — The city of Roswell, New Mexico has passed a resolution declaring that life begins at conception, and that human life “is unique and precious to God” and “must always be protected.” According to the Roswell Daily Record, Resolution 19-28, “A Resolution in Support of the Unborn,” passed in a seven to one vote,…

Continue reading the story

40 Children Miraculously Unharmed Singing ‘Whole World in His Hands’ as Tornado Tears Roof From Kentucky Church   Mar 20, 2019 05:08 pm

Screenshot WPSD-TV PADUCAH, Ky. — Approximately 40 preschoolers and 10 adults were unharmed as they took refuge inside the safe room at their church while a tornado ripped through Paducah, Kentucky on Thursday. “There were probably 50 of us total that didn’t even have a scratch, so I mean nobody can give any credit to that except God,” Michelle Rushing,…

Continue reading the story

Pennsylvania Student Files Complaint With Dept. of Education After Encountering Boy in Girls’ Locker Room   Mar 20, 2019 01:55 pm

HONESDALE, Pa. — A high school student in Pennsylvania has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights after a male student who identifies as female was permitted to change his clothes in the girls’ locker room. The unnamed female complainant, who attends Honesdale High School, outlined in a video posted to social media that…

Continue reading the story

‘Pro-Life’ Republican Chair Allows Indiana Protection at Conception Bill to Die in Committee   Mar 19, 2019 04:41 pm

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — A pro-life group in Indiana is expressing disappointment after the Republican chair of the House Committee on Public Policy, who likewise identifies as pro-life, has again allowed the hearing deadline to pass for a bill that would have outlawed abortion in the state, thus killing the measure for the third time. “Although he campaigned as…

Continue reading the story

Illinois House Advances Bill Requiring Public Schools to Teach About Historical Contributions of Homosexuals   Mar 21, 2019 08:24 am

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The Illinois House of Representatives has advanced a bill that would require public schools K-12 to include in history curriculum the contributions of those who identify as homosexual or transgender. The legislation has been opposed by Christian groups in the state. House Bill 246, presented by Rep. Anna Moeller, D-Elgin, was approved by the…

Continue reading the story

Houston ‘Drag Queen Story Time’ Program Halted Amid Outrage That Sex Offender Read to Children at Library   Mar 21, 2019 02:37 pm

Photo Credit: Wayne Howell/Facebook HOUSTON, Texas — Organizers of the Houston, Texas “Drag Queen Story Time” have decided to discontinue the offering for the “foreseeable future” in the midst of outrage over the revelation that a man who had read to children is a registered sex offender. The organizers state that the library’s failure to run a background check…

Continue reading the story