Gay Pride, Tolerance, and Hate Speech: Are Christians Caught Between Extremes?

It wasn't that long ago when only a few notorious cities in the U.S. held Gay Pride festivals and parades. The gay and lesbian community was underground; the parade was a way of shaking the collective fists at the rest of the nation, who were scandalized and outraged that "Sodom and Gomorrah" would dare to show their faces in apple-pie America.

But these days, gay has gone mainstream. TV shows regularly feature gay themes and portray gay characters in a positive light; our cultural lexicon has a host of words like "out-ed" and "bi-curious." Even small, Midwestern cities have open celebrations where the local GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, & transgender] movers and shakers attempt to unite the gay and straight communities in a celebration of identity and diversity. While the majority of participants belong to the GLBT community, there are plenty in the straight community who attend these events because it's something fabulous to do on a summer weekend.

Many churches in cities large and small are increasingly "gay friendly" or "gay affirming." The Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America (ELCA) don't quite fall under the "gay friendly" aegis; the decision to accept and support gay pastors met with controversy, and there are many churches that have left the ELCA for this reason. But there is, indeed, a move among denominations and church leaders across the country to endorse or at least be more accepting and tolerant of the GLBT subculture. And if there are scriptures that are less than accepting or tolerant of the gay lifestyle, they are either underplayed, reinterpreted, or ignored altogether for the sake of relationship.

There is also the extreme typified by the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and their controversial pastor, Fred Phelps, whose many anti-gay protest demonstrations have been covered by major media. Their website is www.godhatesfags.com, and they have as much hate of the GLBT community as the GLBT community has pride. Alongside the Phelps clan are various conservative Christian pundits and politicians who blame gay America for anything from hurricanes to terrorist attacks. And if there are scriptures that show Jesus loving the sinful or showing mercy to the lost, they are either underplayed, reinterpreted, or ignored altogether for the sake of being right.

And so we see two extremes in churches: grace without the truth of God's word, and truth without the grace of God's love. Neither position is biblical; Jesus came full of grace and truth. (1 John 1:14) The Bible clearly defines homosexual behavior as sin, but it does not impute to it a worse punishment than other sins. All sin is an abomination.

Yet Jesus ate with sinners, didn't He? Didn't Jesus demonstrate His own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, He died for us? (Romans 5:8) Shouldn't we have compassion on those who are lost to sin? When does compassion end and truth kick in?

The answer is that compassion starts with truth, so it never ends. Jesus never sidestepped sin; He never minimized or overemphasized it. He dealt with it, whether it was with the Pharisee or the beggar or the adulteress. Just as our biggest problem is miniscule to God, so also our tiniest sin is intolerable to Him, and so He sent His Son to solve the sin problem, for He is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Jesus sees all humans as equally sinful, whether it is a homosexual, a heterosexual womanizer, a sports figure engaged in dog fighting, a politician lying under oath, a teenager who lies to his parents, Billy Graham, or the Pope.

There are two reactions to sin. You can repent (Greek: metanoeo "change the mind") and adapt yourself to the truth, or you can justify yourself (Greek: dikaioo "render righteous or such as he ought to be") and adapt the truth to your lifestyle. The former relies upon the mercy of God, the latter upon self-improvement or self-salvation. Self-salvation is the origin of religion and the way of Cain, that works can accomplish righteousness. Mercy requires atonement and is dependent upon God, which is why Abel's blood sacrifice was accepted and Cain's fruit offering was rejected.

Where mercy requires humility, self-salvation increases pride. We live in an "I'm okay, you're okay" society where the standards are set by men, not God; we don't like feeling guilty and will do almost anything to get rid of guilt. Except repent. We'd rather acclimate the truth to fit our lifestyle than damage our pride by swallowing it. This means we brush sin under the carpet and pretend that it doesn't matter, or we redefine sin so that we can openly embrace that which we want to do in the flesh. In either case, our pride ends up supplanting God as the source of truth.

Religious pride, or self-righteousness, is a way humans attempt to synthesize the truth and sin. It is an appearance of righteousness, rather than a true righteousness. We attempt a compromise with a God who is holy; in our pride, we attempt to negotiate with God, as if anything less than complete and total truth would have any merit with Him.

But "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble." (James 4:6 and 2 Peter 5:5) He treated the sinful with compassion in truth, but He was quite harsh with the proud. Jesus opposed the religious establishment of His day --the Pharisees and Sadducees -- because they were proud. Religious pride is not Christ-like; it is one of the ugliest things in the world, for it lacks the realization of our own sin before God.

The answer is not "love the sinner, hate the sin." It is "Who is the source of truth?" Humans are not the source of truth; our opinions of what constitute right and wrong are irrelevant. If a husband and wife both agree to bring a third party into their bed, this is not justified merely because they've decided it will fulfill them. God decided what sex is and what the parameters of morality are regarding sex. God said, "Keep the marriage bed holy." We follow God on His terms, not ours.

To be a Christ follower is to follow Christ in all things, whether or not we agree with Him. We do not have the right to countermand God, and neither do we have the perogative to be self-righteous. The answer is neither to redefine sin, nor to stand on our own righteousnesses, which are "filthy rags," (Isaiah 64:6) but to put our pride to death in response to His finished work, to allow the Spirit to crucify the flesh. The crucified cannot act in any other way but compassion, because they are also acutely aware of the truth. Grace and truth only come through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)

"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (1 John:5-10)

Uncovering Tolerance and Compassion--An Answer to “Hiding Out with Tolerance and Compassion”, in the Huffington Post

Many people think that tolerance and compassion are ideals that should be embodied.  I would agree, but only after we define the terms.  Tolerance has come to mean “embrace”, “affirm”, “agree”, “support”, and “defend”.  However, when we tolerate something, are we really embracing, affirming, agreeing, supporting, and defending something?  Synonyms for the word ‘tolerance’ include patience, sufferance, and forbearance. 

One definition for the word “tolerance” is “the allowable deviation from a standard”.  When the word tolerance is used today, which definition are people using?  I find it interesting that many, who use the word in the first sense, will not allow it to be applied to certain things.  In other words, they simply will not tolerate some things.  

In a recent article in the Huffington Post entitled, “Hiding Out with Tolerance and Compassion”, the author, Viashali, says as much.  “Tolerance and compassion are not merely intellectual states of mind. They are meant to be embodied, shared, dare I say it, lived! Tolerance and compassion are divine forms of intelligence that invite us to require more of ourselves.”  “Aren't right and wrong subjective forms of wisdom -- different degrees of the same thing? When I say that, I'm not talking about right and wrong in serial killing, wife beating or child molesting. I'm talking about right and wrong in how one subjectively experiences reality.”

It would seem that the author looks at tolerance and compassion as synonymous with right and wrong as subjective forms of wisdom.  Yet, she is not willing to embrace tolerance when it comes to serial killers, spousal abusers, and pedophiles.  What about their subjective view of reality?  Where is the tolerance, the embracing, the agreement, and the affirmation of murder, brutality, and sexual abuse?  

What she leaves unsaid (but implied) is this…‘Right and wrong are subjective as long as they agree with my view of right and wrong.  As soon as something comes up that I find reprehensible, then it is objectively wrong!’

Right and wrong are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be different degrees of the same thing.  I find it interesting that she had to make an exception to things like serial killing, wife beating, and child molesting when she spoke of right and wrong as “subjective forms of wisdom…different degrees of the same thing”.  If that definition cannot be applied across the board, then it cannot be applied to any part of the spectrum of right and wrong. 

She goes on to say, “When Albert Einstein was alive, hardly anyone agreed with where he was going in his understanding of time, matter and energy. Imagine Einstein being stifled because Clara Bow or Errol Flynn did not endorse his view of reality!”  

Did you notice that she defines reality as a subjective experience, yet idolizes Einstein for championing objective reality?  Reality is not subjective…it simply is what it is…we can either line up with it as Galileo did, or we can reject it, like those who opposed Galileo did.

She is a person filled with contradictory ideals.  She looks at reality as something to be subjectively experienced and defined, at right and wrong as different degrees of the same thing, and yet, tolerance as right and intolerance as wrong.

I wonder if she would agree that tolerance and intolerance are different degrees of the same thing.

I wonder if she is willing to live in a world that is actually tolerant by her definition. 

I wonder if she tolerates the intolerant. 

I wonder if she realizes that she has been duped by the subtleties of dialectical thought. 

She asks the following question, “Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?” 

The whole idea of “agree to disagree” is actually ignorance.  What is the point to doing such a thing?  If you and I are in obvious disagreement, we really don’t need to come to an agreement about the fact that we disagree.  It is a given.  When someone is saying, “We just need to agree to disagree”, it is a way of saying “Shut Up!  You can’t tell me I’m wrong, but I don’t have the intellectual argument to defend my position!”

After reading her entire article in the Huffington Post, I did not see her mention “compassion” at all.  Yes, she alluded to it, but she equated tolerance, affirmation, and sympathy (as opposed to empathy).  I wonder if she realizes that she is touting ‘tolerance and compassion’ as “right”, and ‘intolerance and disregard’ as “wrong”.

She is entirely correct in stating, “Free will is a great gift”.  She is correct in her analogy of the need for adolescents to “fit in”.  She is correct in stating, “We live in a free country. There is no caveat that it has to be free to think only what Madonna, Lady Gaga, President Obama or Dick Cheney want you to think.”

Lastly, she is correct in stating, “There used to be a saying you rarely hear these days, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I would defend your right to say it with my life." Wouldn't it be interesting if that idea were as popular as being politically correct.”[sic]

I may not agree with much of what she had to say in this article.  I actually disagree with most of it.  The majority of what she writes is dialectical subjective nonsense that has no practical application in society or in reality.  However, I will defend with my life her right to say it!

The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

Memorial Day is a day to remember; a day in memoriam.  First called Decoration Day, it was established in 1865 in Charleston, SC by freedmen (freed African slaves) to honor 257 fallen Union soldiers.  It was later decided that this day be a day for all Americans to remember those fallen heroes who paid the ultimate price for the liberty of the people.  

Memorial Day is a day in which we honor soldiers who died for the cause of liberty; a day in which we remember for what it was they fought and died; a day to renew our commitment to protect the very things for which they died.

It might be a good time to list (and remember) the freedoms for which our veterans have fought and died; the liberties granted us by God as inalienable rights, and to renew our commitment to them.  

The First Amendment to the US Constitution

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

Concerning Amendment 1

There are places in the world today where it is considered acceptable to bash verbally one specific religion, but if you bash another, you can be taken into custody before the court system.  Places in which people must be silent on certain subjects lest they be subjected to legal and even criminal prosecution.  Places in which free speech is so limited and denied that people must change their vocabulary or be subject to possible official governmental punishment.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Concerning Amendment 2

There are places in the world today in which the citizenry is not allowed to posses and carry firearms unless the government allows them to do so; and then only if they jump through the right bureaucratic hoops.

The Third Amendment to the US Constitution

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Concerning Amendment 4

There are places in the world where the authorities can enter a person’s private home without a warrant.  They can enter for any reason or no reason at all and the people have no right to prevent them from doing so.  The populace can be stopped while walking or driving without having committed any crime and must show identification and prove their innocence before they can continue with their day.

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Concerning Amendment 5

There are places in the world where the government can force the sale of private property in order to sell it to another private entity just to receive increased property taxes from the new owner.  There are places in which people can be tried for criminal offenses by the government without a fair trial because the “evidence” against them is secret; the defense lawyers and the jury are not allowed to see the evidence and must take the governments word that the accused is guilty.

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Concerning Amendments 6, 7, & 8

There are places in the world where enemies are incarcerated by the military and abused physically, psychologically, and emotionally.  The prisoners are not allowed to sleep for more than ten to twenty minutes at a time for years on end.  They are subjected to hanging by their arms in their cells.  They are routinely suffocated and in many cases severely beaten by the guards.  All of this occurs without a trial to find guilt or innocence, but by the mere accusation of another.

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Concerning Amendments 9 & 10

There are places in the world where the people do not run the government.  The government decides what rights the people may and may not have.  The government defines the limits of the laws and how they are to be applied to the people and if the people speak out against such an abuse, they are ridiculed, threatened, imprisoned, and even executed.

The people of the United States have a tendency to become complacent when there is no observable enemy nearby.  As such, most people look at Memorial Day as just another day in the year in which they don’t have to report to work.  It is a day of fun in the sun at the lake; a day of cookouts, bbq’s, ice-cold beverages, and watching the Indy 500 on the television.  Most Americans have forgotten what the day is supposed to be about in the first place.  We have become complacent, thinking ourselves immune to the travesties that take place in the world. 

We honor our fallen dead by living in the freedoms they fought and died to protect.  We honor our fallen warriors by enjoying cookouts, bbq’s, and sporting events.  However, if we do not maintain vigilance, then we dishonor their memories and their deaths.  If we do not act as civil guardians of the freedoms they died protecting, then we make their deaths vain and meaningless.  

Many do not realize that there are events taking place in the world right now, which spit in the face of liberty.  Memorial Day is a day not only to remember our fallen heroes but also to renew our commitment to liberty.
 

The places and events described above are probably not shocking to many.  Most of us know that the greed and avarice of man will lead him to commit horrible crimes.  Most people know that man’s sinful nature will prompt him to search for power and control over others.  Most know that liberty in the world is a rare thing.  What most do not know is that the events described above have taken and are taking place today in the United States of America.  The beacon of freedom to the world has become the pied piper to socialism.

On this Memorial Day, honor our fallen soldiers by living life to the fullest; enjoy your food, friends, and family.  Above all, honor our fallen champions by protecting the sacrifice they laid upon the altar of liberty.  Care for the seed of freedom they planted with their lives and watered with their life’s blood.  Remember their sacrifice and honor it by taking your rightful place again as “we the people”.  

 Demand that our representatives truly represent us and return to the rule of law of the Constitution.  Take your country back again, and learn what it is to live truly free.  We have shown the world that we have been the Land of the Free, and it has watched as we have allowed our freedoms to all but vanish.  Today, we should begin to show the world that the United States of America truly are the Home of the Brave!

The young finch asked the old one why he wept: "There's comfort in this cage where we are kept."
"You who were born here may well think that's so…But I knew freedom once, and weep to know.

—Ignacy Kasicki

It's been a while...

So...it's been a while since I posted and I really don't have any excuse.  Nevertheless, let me begin formulating my excuses to explain why I have been absent in posting.

Excuse #1:  I'm lazy
Excuse #2:             ...?


By way of catching people up that might (or more likely probably are not) following this blog, I have been a bit busy the last several months.  The one thing that has taken a bit of center stage was a conference that I helped set up and was the final speaker at during the first weekend of May.  Battle for the Soul: DiaPrax in America was a conference that was centered on the idea that the enemy of our soul has developed a systematic approach to manipulate, deceive, and ultimately control how people think.  Once you control "how" people think, it is easy to control "what" they think.

The keynote speaker was Mr. Dean Gotcher from the Institution for Authority Research.  Other speakers were Pastor Paul Mowery of Harvest Fellowship in Leo Indiana, Steve Rea of IAR, our very own Mark Turney of the Reality Check, and me.

Dean spoke for three one-hour sessions, detailing how the process began and has been inculcated into the modern world through the educational establishment and elucidated on the penetration of the process through other areas of our world.  We kept Dean to three one hour slots to make room in everyone's head for all the great information he has to present.  He could probably hold forth for 30 hours if we had the time to go through it all.

Pastor Mowery kicked the session off teaching on the biblical warnings concerning false teachers and false prophets.  Showing how things have worked throughout history and how they continue to work out today.  The main emphasis was upon recognizing the wolf in sheep's clothing and reconciling what they say to the Word of God for authority.  By instilling in people's minds the importance of the immutable standard of the Word as the first, middle, and final authority by which we judge truth and reality, Pastor Mowery set a beautiful tone for the conference.

After Pastor Mowery, Mr. Gotcher spoke for his first of three one-hour sessions and then we retired for the night eager to get back on the next morning to begin afresh.

Saturday morning started with Dean's second and third installments on the dialectic process in education.  Having done thousands of hours of research and reading on the process and coining the phrase "DiaPrax", coming from the words "Dialectic" (dialogue) and "Praxis" (practice) Mr. Gotcher is the foremost authority on the entire process.

Everyone had lunch together as part of the conference after Mr. Gotcher's second talk and then when everyone was done, Mr. Steve Rae began telling his story.  He showed how the educational system is databasing children and performing illegal psychological testing upon them to determine how to change the "how" of their thought process.  He found the databasing process being used on his daughter and fought a hard-won victory in court, proving his case against a team of lawyers.  He took it to the highest court in his home state of Ohio, and won, much to the chagrin of his opposition.

Our own Mark Turney was up to bat next and expounded on DiaPrax in Worship.  Mark's session was most like to step on people's toes and he revealed both 'liberal' and 'conservative' "Christian" leaders who had abandoned the Word of God and replaced it with something that was more palatable.  He then detailed for the attendees the difference between praise and worship.  Praise is an offering of musical adoration to God, and worship is a lifestyle of obedience, not simply to be relegated to 30 minutes on Sunday's and Wednesdays.  Then began his critique on the songs we tend to sing at church and call 'worship'.  He demonstrated the Biblical pattern of praise and songs that are more based upon the experience of the singer and their emotional state and how these songs we not praise songs and did not belong in the 'worship' service at corporate gatherings.

I, Mark Long, gave the final talk of the conference entitled: "What Now?  A practical guide to defending against DiaPrax."  While I did the speaking, much of the information and the systematic approach to this defense came from the hours of work and research by Darren Turney and myself.  We have developed a system to train others to defend themselves in verbal altercations.  This system we titled with the Latin word Tutela, meaning teaching and defending.

The basics of this talk came from a contrast between WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) and WDJD (What Did Jesus Do?)  Making the Word the final authority, not our notion of what seems to be right.  I went through the identification process, and then a three-step solution.

#1  Identify the Standard in Question
#2  Define the Terms in the engagement
#3  Reconcile to the Stand of God's Word

I followed all of this up with some back and forth with the conference attendees to make the final session one of practice and application, more akin to workshop than a seminar.

We are continuing with our video endeavors, and hope to be adding a great deal more content in the very near future.  Please keep us in mind and pray for us as you are directed.

Thanks and God Bless!

Solo Deo Gloria

The Ground Zero mosque: separation of church and state is a two-way street

Fort Wayne is nowhere near Manhattan, yet the recent proposal to build the Park51 mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero 9/11 has the Summit City boiling. Conservative pundits and Christians alike are outraged. While the location may be admittedly in bad taste, the building of a mosque is a part of American religious freedom, something about which the Constitution of the United States is quite explicit.
The Constitution is clear that we have the freedom to express ourselves publicly and religiously, even though the government has been systematically demolishing that freedom with the removal of various Nativity scenes, crosses, and Ten Commandments from public areas. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and many of the same Christians who were saying that the government had no right to intervene in religious expression are now petitioning that same government to block Muslim religious expression, all based on the alleged connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Islamic Jihad, and a dubious connection at that. Does anyone else see the extreme hypocrisy of this? Do American Christians want freedoms that they would deny American Muslims?

A proposed mosque is to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero

Photo: photo by Christ Hondros/Getty Images

What does “Separation of church and state” really mean? How are we applying it today? And most importantly for Christians, what does Jesus teach on the subject?

Separation of church and state is not a phrase found in the Constitution; that much is plain. Is the principle found in the Constitution? You bet. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Government is not allowed to meddle in our religious freedoms. Period. These days, what we hear predominantly is that Christians are not allowed to apply their Christianity to politics or law, for that would be “the church” imposing its views on others, as if American Christians are proposing that the rest of the nation “convert or die.” Christians oppose this because the Constitution only blocks religious organizations, not religious expression itself, from being foisted upon the government.

So why would Christians then petition the State to impose restrictions on another religion’s expression by denying Muslims the freedom to build a mosque? The Constitution is equally frank that no one religious group may legally dominate the government, but it does not give Christianity supremacy over other religions, despite the rhetoric that this is a “Christian nation.” John Adams, perhaps one of the most overtly Christian Founding Fathers, said, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” True, its principles are founded upon Christian heritage, but the government itself does not align itself with any one religion. This is because Adams knew that it is not right to compel someone to follow your religion; if he has the right to be a Christian, then a Muslim has the right to be a Muslim.

So what’s a Christian to do? We must first ask ourselves, what does the Bible teach? When Saul, Israel’s first king, was sacrificing to the LORD, the prophet Samuel rebuked him sharply for disobedience to God. When king Uzziah lit incense in the temple, the priests said, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed! You shall have no honor from the LORD God.” (2 Chronicles 26:18) Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17) When Pilate told Him, “…Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above…” (John 19:10)

It could be said that the notion of separation of church and state is a biblical one. There is a domain that belongs to the church and not the government, despite anything the government may think or say or do. There is also a domain that belongs to the government that does not belong to the church: the authority to carry the sword. The Bible repeatedly says that the State is God’s instrument in justice, that it is those who do evil who should fear the State, that we are to obey the authorities that have been set above us. It is only when those authorities directly compel us to violate the word of God that we have any ground to disobey, and even then we have no right to avoid the consequences of that disobedience. Shadrach, Meshak, and Abednego, as well as the apostles and early Christians, did not shy away from facing death for the cause of truth. It is our American pride that wants to disobey the government with impunity.

Mark Long, a Fort Wayne resident and co-founder of The Reality Check, wrote recently about the mosque issue. “If we deny them, then it will in turn, someday, be used to deny us free expression and/or worship in a place of our choosing. We are either a nation of laws, or we are not.” Meanwhile, the ACLJ is campaigning furiously to have public opinion change the tide and block the rule of law. What sort of precedent is that for a supposedly Christian organization?

If Christians support the State in blocking the construction of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero on private property, then we have forfeited the right to protest the removal of Nativity scenes, crosses, and the Ten Commandments from public areas. Christians must uphold the law, whether we like it or not.

Written by:  Mark Turney

How are right and wrong defined?

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Solomon’s words still hold true today. The idea of morals and ethics go by the sideline when compared to man’s avarice, greed and general ego-centrism. A common example of the depravity of man tends to be our political figures. Many people consider the idea of a political commission entitled an “Ethics Panel” oxymoronic. It seems that politicians in recent history have been more concerned with themselves than they have been about the public they are to serve. Even the very idea of ‘service’ seems to have been “re-imagined”.

Congressman Charles Rangel, a Representative from New York’s 15th district and former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is faced with an investigation by the House Ethics Panel that thus far has entailed 28,000 pages culminating in 13 misconduct allegations concerning his failure to disclose income. These failed disclosures include rental income from a vacation property in the Dominican Republic and more than $600,000 in income. Rangel maintains that he is innocent, even though it is obvious that he didn’t disclose the information.

Fox News reported Rangel as saying: “I'm prepared to prove that the only thing I've ever had in my 50 years of public service is service,…That's what I've done and if I've been overzealous providing that service, I can't make an excuse for the serious violations."

One wonders if Rangel will be held accountable and if he is expelled from the House whether or not this most senior member of New York’s congressional delegation will be re-elected to fill his own vacancy. It wouldn’t be the first time such a thing occurred in New York’s 15th district. Rangel’s predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Chairman of the powerful Congressional Education and Labor Committee, was found to have “misappropriated” Committee funds for personal use. On March 1, 1967 the House voted to exclude him. Then in November of the same year, he won the election to the vacant seat and joined the 91st Congress! He held that position until Rangel defeated him in the primary in 1970, the year that Rangel won the seat.

This information may seem trivial to some, yet it is a sad commentary on our society. If a member of Congress is shown to have used public funds for personal gain, is removed from his seat and then the people of the district re-elect him, is there any hope that the moral fiber of the populace is any better today than it was 40 years ago? Indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun.” The mere fact that a senior member of Congress can call breaking the law “service”, doesn’t bode well for society.

The basic idea in question here is: How are right and wrong defined? Do we really need an “Ethics Panel” to determine right and wrong? The most disturbing part of the Ethics Panel is the fact that they were at one time working on a plea deal with Mr. Rangel. If an average citizen were to withhold the same type of information and use funds in the same fashion as either Rangel or Powell, the public would want the proverbial ‘book’ thrown at them. It would seem that Orwell was right, in that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The ability to determine right from wrong and good from evil is innate within people. The only reason it is debated is in order to justify knowingly doing wrong.

Adam Clayton Powell Jr.

The worldview that supports this type of thinking is a humanistic worldview. That somehow, man is the arbiter of right and wrong, instead of God. Thinking that man’s ways are above God’s ways is backwards. Ideas of a ‘social gospel’ and ‘social justice’ seem to be the ideas du jour; certainly they were not strange topics of discussion Powell. They were common themes preached on by his father and later himself as the pastors of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. Within the ‘social gospel’ message any concept of individual responsibility and personal culpability are taboo. Yet the very mindset of collectivism and relativism are what society seems to be embracing today. People may rant against the application of these ideas within the political arena, even if they think them par for the course. Yet they don’t seem to realize the application of the same ideas when it comes to their everyday lives.

The ability to determine right from wrong as it applies to all falls to the wayside when people are faced with it in their own lives. Situational ethics become THE method of determination. Morals and values get placed on the back burner when the ends justify the means. “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” People have no problem justifying themselves while pointing their fingers or looking down their noses at politicians like Rangel and Powell. Why is there a difference?

Could it be that people find it easier to judge others than to look at themselves critically? Maybe it is the difference between facts and values, or public and private lives? Try to tell another person that what they did was wrong or that there is a standard of right and wrong that applies to everyone and see what happens. You will be faced with disagreement, anger, resentment, and cries of intolerance.

Somehow stating that there is a standard of right and wrong that has been determined not by man, but by God is considered ‘wrong’. Those that preach ‘tolerance’ will not ‘tolerate’ anyone who tells them they are ‘wrong’ about the definition of right and wrong. Do you see the lack of logic, the contradiction, the hypocrisy?

Society in the U.S. isn’t in the condition it is in because of all the rascals in politics. All the rascals in politics are in politics, BECAUSE society is in the condition it is in. “We the people” have allowed the slow but steady decay of value and morals in the public arena. The idea of relativistic truth or “what’s true for you might not be true for me.” is the culprit.

Some may wonder why Rangel is treating the situation so trivially, but if he must face the House Judiciary Committee, then maybe this will offer some possible insight as to why Rangel doesn’t seem worried. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers is quoted as saying concerning the massive healthcare bill: “I love these members that get up and say “Read the bill!”. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

This type of statement can allow us a bit on insight into the way The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sees right and wrong. It would appear that to him, right and wrong are not defined by an outside entity, but rather situational ethics or subjectivism prevails. Right and wrong are determined by the circumstances and the ends, the means are trivial.

It would seem that it isn’t only the economy that is in a downturn. Until people decide to stand up and speak forth truth backed by a commitment to the righteous standard of God, then we will see more of the same. In the meantime, people like Charlie Rangel will be let of easy and won’t sweat a drop worrying about if what they do is right or wrong, because they get to define them.

For more thoughts on politics and morals check out The Reality Check, Where Truth Matters!

Religious Freedom in America?

If asked, most people would say that the United States of America allows for the free practice of religion.  Many would point to the First Amendment of the Constitution and say: “Religious Freedom”.  While it is true that the Constitutional Amendment does say that the government shall “make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press…”  What people don’t realize is that in the ‘Greatest Nation on Earth’, that is exactly what is happening today.

To see through the shadowy mist that is political correctness, we need to simplify the situation and break it down to the smallest common denominator.  When people today talk about tolerance, diversity, and freedom of speech the people speaking those words may intend them to mean the obvious, but in reality they way they are applied is totally the opposite.  Religious freedom entails the ability to disagree with an immoral act.  But those who cry tolerance will not tolerate that kind of religious freedom.  Religious freedom demands that adherents be allowed to live out their belief system, but in the case of Julea Ward, a former graduate student at Eastern Michigan University expelled for refusing to change her Christian view of homosexuality as immoral.

While some Christians may disagree with Ward’s actions in light of the scriptures, what we see here is the government dictating what a person can or cannot believe.  It doesn’t seem like a very tolerant view, does it?  So much for religious freedom.  What is happening is simple.  The Christian worldview is not allowed to be followed by Christians as they live, work, or go to school out in the public arena.  Politically correct proponents would point out that the public arena must be void of value and moral judgments to allow for true freedom.  But the reality check is this:  One value system is being replaced by another.  To simplify:

Value A:

Homosexuality is immoral

Value B:

Homosexuality is not immoral

They will replace value A with value B and say that it is objective, tolerant and tell those who believe value A they can believe it, but they can’t force their morals and values on others.  They call this religious freedom.  They don't see that they forced their moral and values on others.  The hypocrisy continues!

What is taking place is the court system and (by extension) the government is replacing one value system with another.  It isn’t objective, it isn’t tolerant, and it does violate the First Amendment in that it is prohibiting the free expression of religion.  On the sidelines the “Church” sits by without so much as a whimper.  When did we come to understand that right and wrong are defined by any court?  When did we just give up the ‘fight’?  If we truly stand for religious freedom, shouldn’t someone at least ask; “Whose value system gets to replace the current one?” 

People need to understand that in order to have religious freedom in a nation; they are going to be offended.  We all have the right to live in accordance with the religion we choose.  We all have the right to pray or not to pray, even in public.  WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT NO ONE OFFEND US.  That isn’t religious freedom at all, that is a soft tyranny of, by and for the people.  Think about it, if you were never allowed to do or say anything that might cause offense to another person, would you have any kind of freedom at all?  Absolutely not.  Would you have true religious freedom?  Same answer…not at all!

 The nature of reality dictates that there are absolutes.  We must be willing to allow other to believe a view that is contrary to the view we hold.  The idea of ‘tolerance’ doesn’t preclude disagreement it requires it.  If we can force an individual or group to only hold their belief system in the privacy of their own homes but not in the public arena, then we have done nothing more than to stab religious freedom in the heart. 

No one can say that they demand objectivity in the public arena when it comes to a moral stance, it is impossible to achieve.  In the United States, the people have witnessed a slippery slope, a sly shift or a re-defining  or re-imagining of the idea of religious freedom.  Now we have freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.  Religious freedom was so important to our founders that the first amendment to the young Constitution was written to ensure that the people truly had religious freedom.  To ensure that the government couldn’t decide what moral value system people in all the states adhered to.  They ensured religious freedom for all people in all times.   Of course, it has been a long time since the politicians or courts have had too much concern with the Constitution, except when it is used to block something they have wanted to do…that they just won’t tolerate!

For more information on religious freedom and other interesting subjects, read some of the articles on our main site The Reality Check Where Truth Matters!

The Reality Check is blogging

Hello everyone!  This first blog is just to welcome you all here today and thank you for taking the time to stop by and see what is going on with us here at The Reality Check.

We will begin our full time blogging in the very near future.  But for now, suffice it to say that we will be writing about a great number of things that are not necessarily part of our full site.  The site The Reality Check, will be getting a face-lift here in the near future and some added content and opportunities for you to interact, support and opt-in.  I don't want to give anything away, so you'll just have to check back in regularly to see what we have in the works.

For those of you who are actively involved in social media, The Reality Check has a Facebook page that you can become a fan of.  We haven't had a lot of activity in the past, but that is all going to change.

In the meantime, because truth matters...here is a book that I cannot help but recommend to everyone interested in understanding more about Truth and the Christian walk.  It helps to draw a distinction between partial truths that are touted in the relativistic form and what Francis Schaeffer called True Truth.  The book is called Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcy.  If there is one book you buy this year, this should be the one.















Till the next time!