Is the gospel no longer enough for black Christians?

Darrell B. Harrison asks the question, "Is the gospel no longer enough for black Christians?":

I believe this question to be germane to the current milieu in America, as many black Christians have begun to advocate a purely activist theology borne of a soteriology that proffers the idea that the preeminent, if not sole, mandate of the gospel is the pursuit of “social justice”, the manifestation of which is evidenced primarily by the bringing about of such realities as socio-ethno egalitarianism and the eradication of all human suffering and oppression, particularly of those whose melanin happens to be of a black or brown hue.

You can (and should) read the rest here, and ask yourself: Is the gospel no longer enough for me?

An atheist voices support for Kim Davis

Well, not so much support for Kim Davis as disdain for the government responsible for locking her up.

Libertarian atheist Stephen Molyneux has never been shy when it comes to criticizing Christianity, but he does admire people who remain true to their convictions. His personal beliefs and anti-Christian worldview aside, I can appreciate his position on this issue, and I think some of the points he makes are more insightful than many I have heard from Christians. Take a look:

Hillary Clinton praised in her very own 'gospel' song

"Woke up this morning with my mind stayed on Hillary!"

Sickening, but par for the course.

What it means every time you say, 'There should be a law...'

The problem with our political system is that people no longer view the government as the protector of life, liberty, and property. They vote to use the government (and its guns) to force their will on others. Just because you use a ballot instead of a bullet doesn't make it right.

Meet the modern 'Good Samaritan'

(via Young Americans for Liberty)

Russell Moore vs. Roy Moore: Whose law?

"For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us."
- Isaiah 33:22

Ours is no longer a nation of laws. Individual judges long ago assumed the power to impose their will on the public, and that is exactly what Judge Ginny Granade of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama did last month. On January 23, Granade ruled that the Alabama

Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act are "unconstitutional on Equal Protection and Due Process Grounds." She further ordered Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange not to enforce those laws, which simply asserted that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in turn ordered probate judges in the state to ignore Granade's ruling. His reasoning was grounded in the fact that the ruling only applied to Attorney General Strange, and since probate judges are the ones charged with issuing marriage licences, the constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage" remained intact. Besides, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that marriage is a state issue, and since the people of Alabama had already spoken, the issue was settled.

Russell D. Moore disagrees. He thinks Chief Justice Moore should either comply with Judge Granade or resign. In a written statement released to Baptist Press, he said:

As citizens and as Christians, our response should be one of both conviction and of respect for the rule of law (1 Peter 2:13; Romans 13). Our system of government does not allow a state to defy the law of the land.

In a Christian ethic, there is a time for civil disobedience in cases of unjust laws. That's why, for instance, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. went to jail. In the case of judges and state Supreme Court justices, though, civil disobedience, even when necessary, cannot happen in their roles as agents of the state. Religious freedom and conscience objections must be balanced with a state's obligation to discharge the law. We shouldn't have officials breaking the law, but civil servants don't surrender their conscience simply by serving in government. While these details are being worked out, in the absence of any conscience protections, a government employee faced with a decision of violating his conscience or upholding the law, would need to resign and protest against it as a citizen if he could not discharge the duties of his office required by law in good conscience.

While Russell Moore would argue Romans 13 dictates that the chief justice should submit to the governing authority, Roy Moore, as a sitting judge, is also a governing authority. The question then arises: which "law of the land" is to be obeyed?

On one hand, a federal judge has single-handedly nullified Alabama's state constitution on a whim. On the other hand, a State Supreme Court justice has sworn to uphold that same constitution. In addition, nothing in the U.S. Constitution grants federal judges the power to strike down state laws. (I know that kind of talk is considered heresy today, but these United States were once considered "free and independent.") So, which is the more legitimate law?

In regard to Judge Granade's ruling, Russell Moore would like to see Roy Moore "resign and protest against it as a citizen." Well, Judge Moore is already a citizen. As chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he is in a much better position to protest against unlawful judicial decisions, protecting those within his jurisdiction against an overreaching authority who would order others to do what God forbids.

God's law remains in effect. It would seem to me that the more legitimate law in the civil realm, the law to be obeyed, is the one under which "rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad" (Romans 13:3).

Are Christian health care ministries undermining ObamaCare? Let's hope so.

Molly Worthen, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, bemoans the growing popularity of health care sharing organizations like Samaritan Ministries International and Christian Healthcare Ministries. Sure, they have their admirable qualities, but it just isn't fair that they can escape the clutches of ObamaCare.

And, of course, limiting membership to Christians is a little too exclusive. Worthen concludes, "To make the Affordable Care Act stick, and to make it work, means convincing more Americans that they are not just their brother's keeper." Apparently, charity that isn't coerced at the point of a gun just isn't charity.

A dangerous religion

When speaking to Middle Eastern Christians, try not to force Israel down their throats

That's a lesson one politician learned the hard way:

Sen. Ted Cruz was booed offstage at a conference for Middle Eastern Christians Wednesday night after saying that "Christians have no greater ally than Israel."

Cruz, the keynote speaker at the sold-out D.C. dinner gala for the recently-founded non-profit In Defense of Christians, began by saying that "tonight, we are all united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are all united in defense of Jews. Tonight, we are all united in defense of people of good faith, who are standing together against those who would persecute and murder those who dare disagree with their religious teachings."

He didn't stop there, of course:

"Those who hate Israel hate America," he continued, as the boos and calls for him to leave the stage got louder. "Those who hate Jews hate Christians. If those in this room will not recognize that, then my heart weeps. If you hate the Jewish people you are not reflecting the teachings of Christ. And the very same people who persecute and murder Christians right now, who crucify Christians, who behead children, are the very same people who target Jews for their faith, for the same reason."

The cries of "stop it, stop it, enough," and booing continued. "Out, out, leave the stage!" At this point IDC's president, Toufic Baaklini, came out to the stage to ask for the crowd to listen to Cruz, but Cruz had already had enough.

"If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews," he said. "Then I will not stand with you. Good night, and God bless." And with that, he walked off the stage.

So, disagreeing with Israeli military action and foreign policy amounts to hating the Jews? Way to stay classy, Ted.

Ann Coulter is annoyed by the "narcissism" of "idiotic" Christian missionaries

The funny thing about the internet is that it doesn't forget. Once you say something, it's out there. Forever. Someone should have reminded Ann Coulter of that fact before she attacked Dr. Kent Brantly of Samaritan's Purse.

In her latest column, Coulter criticized Dr. Brantly for traveling all the way to Africa to serve while ignoring all the problems here at home:

Can't anyone serve Christ in America anymore?

No—because we're doing just fine. America, the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, is merely in a pitched battle for its soul.

About 15,000 people are murdered in the U.S. every year. More than 38,000 die of drug overdoses, half of them from prescription drugs. More than 40 percent of babies are born out of wedlock. Despite the runaway success of "midnight basketball," a healthy chunk of those children go on to murder other children, rape grandmothers, bury little girls alive—and then eat a sandwich. A power-mad president has thrown approximately 10 percent of all Americans off their health insurance—the rest of you to come! All our elite cultural institutions laugh at virginity and celebrate promiscuity.

So no, there's nothing for a Christian to do here.

If Dr. Brantly had practiced at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles and turned one single Hollywood power-broker to Christ, he would have done more good for the entire world than anything he could accomplish in a century spent in Liberia. Ebola kills only the body; the virus of spiritual bankruptcy and moral decadence spread by so many Hollywood movies infects the world.

If he had provided health care for the uninsured editors, writers, videographers and pundits in Gotham and managed to open one set of eyes, he would have done more good than marinating himself in medieval diseases of the Third World.

Classy as always, Ms. Coulter.

She goes on to grumble about Dr. Brantly's apparent lack of patriotism:

America is the most consequential nation on Earth, and in desperate need of God at the moment. If America falls, it will be a thousand years of darkness for the entire planet.

Not only that, but it's our country. Your country is like your family. We're supposed to take care of our own first. The same Bible that commands us to "go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel" also says: "For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'"

Coulter concludes her tirade by accusing Dr. Brantly and others like him of "Christian narcissism." It seems she thinks about as highly of Christians missionaries as she does liberals and immigrants.

Three thoughts immediately spring to mind upon reading her article. First, it seems to me that a doctor who believes he is called to help people afflicted with diseases like Ebola might actually desire to travel to places that have people afflicted with diseases like Ebola. Call it an educated guess.

Secondly, Ann Coulter is not writing from a Christian perspective. She may claim to be a Christian, but she certainly isn't drawing from scripture. For her, America is God's chosen nation, and nationalism is her religion. That's probably why she thinks it's a good idea for America to invade other countries, "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"—or at least her version of it.

Thirdly, everything Coulter said about this doctor could be said of every soldier sent overseas to kill and die in the name of freedom. Really, is there a more worshiped image in this country than a man or woman in uniform? But you won't hear that kind of talk from her. It's much easier to hang on to one's conservative credentials by attacking Christian missionaries.

Sadly, Ann Coulter's writings are now a permanent fixture of the internet. However, it is encouraging to remember that her views will one day be scraped into the dustbin of historical irrelevancy along with those of other nationalist jingoists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly.

Mission accomplished: Ridding Iraq of Christianity

I was always baffled by the overwhelming support evangelical Christians gave to our government's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Just over a decade later, Christianity appears to be dying out in that country:

The vicar of the only Anglican church in Iraq has warned the end for Christians in the country appears "very near" as he appealed for help after a deadline set by Islamic militants to convert or be killed expired.

Canon Andrew White, dubbed "the bishop of Baghdad" for his work at St George's church in the capital, spoke after the ultimatum handed to Christians in the northern city of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq Levant (Isis) to convert, pay a tax or be put to death passed last week.

For those Christians who did not comply with the decree by 19 July, Isis warned that "there is nothing to give them but the sword.” Many have since fled their homes and Rev. Andrew-White told BBC Radio 4 Today desperate Christians were trapped in the desert or on the streets with nowhere to go.

"Things are so desperate, our people are disappearing," he said. "We have had people massacred, their heads chopped off.

"Are we seeing the end of Christianity? We are committed come what may, we will keep going to the end, but it looks as though the end could be very near."

The "war on terror" has been a dismal failure. In the name of "fighting for our freedom," our nation's armed forces have seen to it that the Middle East is a safe haven for radical Islam. Given that history, why do Christians continue to sign up for military service?

A men's conference to skip

It's not a written rule, but I typically shy away from any men's conference that features as its headline speaker a liar directly responsible for the senseless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, and who denies the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

Way to go, LifeWay.

Minimum Wage Legislation Based on "Principle As Old As the Bible"?

I wouldn't be surprised if Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois actually believes that "you shall not make less than $10.65 per hour" is the 11th Commandment:


Gary North dismantles Gov. Quinn's argument:

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that the civil government has an obligation to achieve the impossible. If it is impossible for a civil government to pass a law that will make every employee a member of the middle class, simply because the government is incapable of making people sufficiently productive to enter the middle class, then anything that the government does in an attempt to make everyone a member of the middle class will backfire. It will increase the number of people who are poor. This is because employers will not hire them.

A minimum-wage law is, above all, a law that says that somebody who is willing to work for less than the minimum wage will not be allowed to do so, because the legislature has made such a transaction illegal. It restricts employers from making offers to employ people at less than the minimum wage. So, those people whose output is not sufficient to warrant paying them the minimum wage will find that they must either move outside the jurisdiction of the legislature, or seek employment in the black market, or go on welfare.

Probably they will go on welfare. They will figure that it's better to get something for nothing (welfare) than getting nothing for nothing (unemployment without pay). They are, in short, a lot smarter than those members of Illinois legislature who vote for a minimum-wage law. Those politicians really do believe that you can get something for nothing. You can get paid for output that you do not have the ability to produce.

Asking Christians to Violate Their Conscience

"You conservative Christians who are complaining about being forced to provide services to same-sex couples need to grow up. If Jesus wouldn't have a problem baking a cake for a gay wedding, then neither should you."

That pretty much sums up the message of a recent article in The Daily Beast by Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt. The article was written in response to legislation passed in Arizona (which has since been vetoed) allowing businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples (and, presumably, polygamists, pedophiles, etc.) on the basis that providing such services would constitute a violation of conscience.

According to Powers and Merritt:

Many on the left and right can agree that nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience. But in order to violate a Christian's conscience, the government would have to force them to affirm something in which they don't believe. This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic. If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist "affirmed" their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.

The authors are implying two things in their analysis. First, by saying "nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience," they are suggesting there are times when it becomes necessary to force people to violate their conscience. Current laws and court cases do just that.

Second, since one's conscience can only be violated if one is forced to affirm something in which one doesn't believe, and since providing services to same-sex couples in no way affirms their lifestyle (or, if you prefer today's accepted terminology, "the way God made them"), then there is nothing about which one can complain. They seem to be saying, "You conservative Christians have already lost on this issue, so the sooner you get used to it, the better."

Strangely, conservative Christians seem to have little interest in this level of analysis and jump right to complaints about their legal and constitutional rights. It's not that these rights don't matter. Rather, they should be a secondary issue for Christians. Before considering legal rights, Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage. The answer is, it does not.

Well, a lot of Christians would argue that it does. Romans 1 comes to mind. After all, what is a gay "wedding" if not a celebration and endorsement of sin?

Veto aside, the legislation would have been completely useless in defending religious liberty. It had a built-in loophole that allowed government to "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" if it could be demonstrated that one's exercise of religion prohibited the "furtherance of a compelling governmental interest." What exactly is a "compelling governmental interest"? That's one of those vague terms lawmakers like to slip into pieces of legislation with the intention of having it clarified in future court cases, usually resulting in the growth of government power. Nevertheless, simply because a few conservative Christians viewed initial passage of this legislation as a win for their side, the gay rights supporters were upset.

Never mind the fact that there are plenty of other business owners who would step up to accommodate same-sex couples denied service by closed-minded Christian bigots. This is about tolerance, dang it, and we simply won't tolerate intolerance!

That anyone, especially professing Christians, would have a problem with defending private property rights is very telling. We are no longer a society seeking justice and equality; we are a society that seeks to remedy any perceived social "injustice" by granting one particular and very small group of people special rights and protections above everyone else.

It is clear that Powers and Merritt see themselves as the stronger sister and brother, and they are only trying to assure the rest of us, those of weaker faith, that it's OK to go against our conscience if our conscience is misinformed. They conclude:

Rather than protecting the conscience rights of Christians, this [legislation] looks a lot more like randomly applying religious belief in a way that discriminates against and marginalizes one group of people, while turning a blind eye to another group. It's hard to believe that Jesus was ever for that.

No, what's hard to believe is that two Christians would ignore 1 Corinthians 8 and chastise their brothers and sisters in Christ. Their problem isn't with government forcing Christians to go against their principles; the problem is that Christians aren't going along with a clear conscience.

Wilson: 'Liberalism Is Inherently and Tyrannically Coercive'

Douglas Wilson believes "liberalism is inherently and tyrannically coercive, and that liberals, by advocating the programs of liberalism, are thereby advocating coercion." He writes:

If you don't do what they say, at some point in the proceedings, men with guns are going to show up at your house. I do not have a problem with this if those men with guns are going after a pedophile, or rapist, or a murderer. Go ahead. Coerce away. If you need them, I will provide you with the verses that show that God approves of this kind of coercion. But if they are showing up at a man's house because he got tired of having bureaucrats pee a bunch of his money into the Potomac, then something has gone wrong somewhere. The liberal idea of democracy is three coyotes and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

I believe the same can also be said of conservatives who look to the state to legitimize their views.

God Supports the "Affordable" Care Act?

Of course he does. Ed Schultz says so:


Besides, when Jesus told us to take care of the poor, he obviously meant that it should be done through the governmental use of force.

Job 6:28

"But now, be pleased to look at me, for I will not lie to your face" (Job 6:28).

How Christians Should Respond to Conspiracy Theories

From the left and from the right, from man-made global warming to the New World Order, we're constantly bombarded by conspiracy theories. Franklin Sanders tells us how Christians should respond:

Nothing comes to us before God determines, or without God determining, but only exactly when God determines. If he sent it, he will turn it. If he sent it, then he has already made us ready to handle it. If he sent it, no matter how painful, how wrong, how tyrannous on the part of evildoers, yet he will cause it to work for good. Therefore Paul can call himself not the prisoner of the Romans, but the prisoner of Christ, because if he was in prison, he was there because God put him there, and would work greater things through him there than in freedom. Besides, we know that evil things will, most certainly, happen to his adopted children because thus he sanctifies us and conforms us to the image of Christ by sharing his sufferings. Now if Christ himself had to learn obedience through suffering, how will we learn it without?

There are no accidents.

The wicked are not in charge.

God works all things together for good to his beloved.

Gary North Discusses the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum

The curriculum officially launches on September 2 of this year. Read more about this revolutionary educational endeavor at RonPaulCurriculum.com.

A Libertarian Perspective on Romans 13

Romans 13 is often used as an appeal for Christians not to resist government. "Reformed Libertarian" C. Jay Engel has written an interesting and thoughtful post on that particular passage. Here's an excerpt:

There are four overall points that can be gathered in this passage.

1. God is sovereign and he has a plan. He can use evil to achieve the ends that he has ordained before the foundations of time. In the original context: God exists over Nero.

2. In our gospel-oriented ministry, we are not seeking to overthrow the government. When Paul wrote this he understood that it might have reached Nero's hands. It was wise of him to make sure Nero understood that there was no Christian movement to take over. All governments from the dawn of time until today, are jealous governments, always scared that someone will steal the throne. In the original context: Nero, we are not aiming for your throne.

3. Government has a mandate to submit to the higher law of God by only punishing the wicked and not the good. Anything beyond that is abuse of power. Therefore, as the absolute libertarians would advocate, it is wrong for the government to forbid the spontaneous arising of other governments. There is no mandate in scripture telling the government that it must have a monopoly on governing services. In the original context: Nero, you have a purpose; submit to it.

4. Turn the other cheek. We must practice daily Christian character. In the original context: Apply my lessons [in Romans 12] to even the government.

To conclude, from a libertarian standpoint, it is important to note that a governing entity is the means by which God has decided to carry out justice. This in no way should be assumed to be a defense of the morality of the State itself. This passage can only be assumed to be a defense of the existence of an entity that practices the pursuance of justice. God has given law. Man has rights to his life and his property because God has entrusted him with those things. And what God has given, man cannot take away. This is the law Justice consists of protecting these rights, this law. This is the only role of a governing institution.

Read the full article here.