The gospel of "justice," a new way to preach "circumcision?"

By: Kenny Steier 

Over the past 2 weeks many at The Gospel Coalition’s MLK50 conference, and the Together 4 the Gospel Conference have been postulating the need for "racial reconciliation" in the church and "social justice," and calling them "gospel issues". Many of these statements have come from men whom I’ve reaped great benefit and encouragement from listening to. I still respect and certainly still love them in Christ, but I’ve become greatly concerned. What’s been troubling is their subversion of the Word to make the gospel say something more than it actually does thereby making their goals a Christian requirement.

Let me be clear; I detest racial prejudice, and seek to have it rectified when I see it. When I do hear about churches causing division on account of the color of someone’s sin I get sad and angry, for that is entirely against what scripture teaches. The Lord makes this very clear to Peter in Acts 10:34-35 “So Peter opened his mouth and said, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” If we show partiality by either giving someone more esteem or less esteem and care based on their ethnicity, we’re in sin. Another helpful example is in 1 Samuel 16:7 where the Lord says to Samuel when he’s going to anoint the new king of Israel: “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” These verses fly in the face of certain preachers who say that white people need to repent of their racist sins. Such a sweeping judgement of millions of people based on the color of their skin is clearly unbiblical. What they would be correct and justified in doing is to call out
specific instances of racism in the church. These do exist on both sides of the color spectrum in the church; real hurts have been given and received that should be dealt with. However, the perpetrators of the sin are the ones who need to repent and seek forgiveness, merely sharing a sin color does not mean that the guilt is also shared. “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”- (John 7:24)

So how exactly has the Bible been used incorrectly? In order to substantiate his claim that “My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least saying their parents and grandparents and this country are complicit in murdering a man who only preached love and justice,” Thabiti Anyabwile, writing for The Gospel Coalition, justifies his remark by citing Titus 1 where Paul is talks about the Cretans.
One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. (Titus 1:12-14).
The error he commits is missing that Paul is describing a cultural problem, not an ethnic/racial one. He was instructing Titus on how to establish solid leadership over them so that they would not be led astray by false doctrine. Their tendency of believing in fantastic things and myths is not necessarily an inborn and innate trait of being born a Crete. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see the apostles urging the brethren to apologize for sins their tribe had committed to another one. There would be no end to the confessing. The Lord recognizes that we humans have a sinful tendency to hold onto to hurts, and to make sinfully prejudiced categorizations of other people groups. The apostles counteract that tendency. Paul does so very clearly in Colossians 3:10-11.
Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
The NT does not deny the existence of ethnic diversity, but it certainly speaks to how we often treat it incorrectly, so Paul in a sense is saying “You know all those problems you guys have with each other because of your differences? Forget about them. You’re new creations in Christ, and are of one body in Him. Your citizenship and identity in Him greatly exceed any identification you previously held to.” The clarity of Paul’s words makes it shocking that men who can so skillfully exigete God’s Word mess up in an area that seems so cut and dry.

One article I found particularly disturbing was a confession piece by Paul Tripp in which he lamented how he’d been preaching an imbalanced gospel all these years. Preaching the gospel of grace, but not the gospel of justice. “By God’s grace, I have become deeply persuaded that we cannot celebrate the gospel of God’s grace without being a committed ambassador of the gospel of his justice as well.” Now here’s the thing, the author gets so much right in this article:

Of course, God would have never have participated in such a negotiation, because he is a perfectly holy God! And if he had, there would have been no need for the penalty-bearing, forgiveness-granting, and acceptance-resulting sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Think with me for a moment. Grace is never permissive. Grace never calls wrong right. If wrong were not wrong, there would be no need for grace. Forgiveness always assumes some offense against moral law.

That means we cannot celebrate and proclaim the message of God’s grace while we do what God would never do—close our eyes to the injustice around us. We cannot be comfortable with exegeting his mercy for all people without being an advocate for his justice for all people.
These are all true, and there are other grand truths of God the author puts very eloquently in that article. Of course the Christian ought to be for justice, because God is just, and we’re made in His image! Regrettably, here we find some very big inconsistencies that are concerning. The author talks about being committed to God’s “gospel of justice.” This makes no sense biblically speaking. ‘Gospel’ means ‘Good news’ God’s justice is punishment for our sins. We stand condemned before Him, and our sins earn us an eternity in Hell. God’s justice is the bad news part of the gospel! The good news is that if we’re in Christ, we’re spared that, and get to spend an eternity with Him because of His grace! Being a “committed ambassador of the gospel of his justice” is a bizarre thing to say. “Good news everyone! You’re all going to Hell!” I don’t think that’s what he intends, but biblically speaking, that is what that would mean. So lets overlook that poor phrasing of what I believe the author is really getting at which he states in the article with this “The cross forbids me to close my eyes to any form of injustice, whether personal, corporate, governmental, ecclesiastical, or systemic.” He never describes what being an ambassador of justice looks like. He talks about how he and his wife grew closer and had their eyes opened to some racist struggles black people in his church faced, yet he never mentions how he brought justice into it.

Another problem is where he says:

How can we stand for justice when we have let prejudice separate us? How can we understand the travail of others who we are never with, never see, and never hear? How can we stand for justice when, because of prejudice, there are those we will minister to, but whose leadership we wouldn’t serve under, for no other apparent reason than race? How can we advocate for the family when we are a broken and divided spiritual family?
Again no specific examples are given, and he uses a lot of generalizations. Now, I surely recognize that there are some churches, on both sides of the melanin spectrum which have people who struggle or give-in to racism in word or perhaps deed. These churches need a gospel-reformation. But he says things like “our churches” and “But to whose leadership we wouldn’t serve under.” Are there people like this? Yes, and maybe the author really was like this, but it’s fallacious of him to lump me in with his sin just because we look alike. For a lot of these allegations, he may speak for himself. I wonder if he’s even committed what he’s claiming to repent of, and if he just hasn’t been guilt-tripped into it. Justice after salvation is upholding God’s judgement without regard for someone’s background. What I see here is “because their background is this, then we must do X.” Don’t get me wrong, it is right to come alongside our brothers and sisters who have suffered! (Mourn with those who mourn) And we should do so regardless of their skin color. God does not show favoritism, and neither should we.

I truly believe that the gospel unites, and that when one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers with it. The big issue here is that these preachers have been trying to make this racial reconciliation and social justice a part of the gospel, when they aren’t. The gospel naturally accomplishes this thing, it is it's fruits. I look at my church as an example of this. It’s pretty diverse, and we don’t preach racial reconciliation or social justice, we preach the gospel. God reconciling man to himself through Jesus. All men are sinners, God shows no partiality in whom he saves. We all love talking about how great God is, His gospel, and living according to His Word so that as 1 Peter 1:15-16 says, “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” No, we’re not perfect, but there’s definitely a oneness in Christ that was accomplished through the gospel, not diversity for its own sake. I pray that these leaders would return to that basic and wonderful truth that the apostles preached, and would turn from what really seems like a new way of preaching circumcision.


When should racism be preached against?

By: Jonathan Harris

Some have rightfully asked, in light of the recent controversies over neo-Marxism at Together for the Gospel and MLK 50, “When is it right to preach about racism?” Here are some helpful thoughts.

1) First to clarify- the current controversy is not over “racism,” at least not in the way it is being portrayed by those on the left side of this issue. James White, Doug Wilson, Phil Johnson, and Todd Friel etc. deeply believe that it is sinful for someone to be devalued by others because of the level of pigmentation in their skin. They are NOT contending that the sin of pride as manifested in racism should be silenced from church discussions. They are reacting to a false gospel disguised as “anti-racism.” The false (neo-Marxist) gospel is the issue. Thabiti Anyabwile, David Platt, and Russell Moore on the other hand are comfortable painting “white,” “evangelicals,” or “reformed” people, as the case may be, as bearing the stain of the sin of racism due to their group identification. If either side is in danger of slipping into racism it is not those on the right.

“Ok, even if the current controversy isn’t over ‘racism,’ shouldn’t the church do something to address the topic?” The answer is of course, “Yes.”

2) The sin of pride, as it manifests itself in ethnic superiority, should be addressed when the Bible speaks on the issue (i.e. when a pastor happens to be preaching through a text that directly addresses the topic). Part of the problem plaguing the left is poor exegisis. Those who would have a conniptions if they were ever associated with theonomists, are perfectly fine using texts from the Old Testament that contain the word “justice,” and reading into that word a meaning previously only associated with socialist politicians. The allegedly “anti-racist” sermons being preached have next to no exegesis supporting their applications. When exegesis was offered up, for example by James White in his walk-through of Collosians 3, it was mocked and dismissed by Thabiti Anyabwile without any attempted alternative interpretation.

Moral of the story is- if you’re going to preach on anti-racism, MAKE SURE the text you’re using supports anti-racism. If it does not, you probably are not preaching on the topic you think you are.

3) Another time to preach against racism, provided the text supports the message, is when there is a sin that needs to be corrected within the church. The logical next question would be, “What constitutes evidence that Christians are engaging in devaluing other images of God due to skin pigmentation?” So far it has been suggested by the “racial reconciliationists,” that the failure of “white” people in the church to adequately stand against slavery, segregation, Donald Trump, and police brutality are evidence enough that the church must address racism. David Platt went so far as to suggest that the ratio of white to black people at Together for the Gospel was evidence that the church has a problem with racism. This is usually where heart strings are pulled and things get emotional.        

    •    It is true that horrible situations have occurred, and individuals professing Christ have at times been on the wrong side of these situations. That being said, what is the solution? The gospel would indicate repentance, forgiveness, and moving on. The “racial reconciliationists” demand more—racial quotas, perpetual corporate apologies for ‘privilege,’ and a whole host of policies that are more consistent with identity politics than with anything resembling Christian reconciliation.

    •    The demand of those on the left in the neo-Marxist controversy is that apologies be made for past sins. Underlying this demand is the assumption that those with “white” skin are complicit in sins they never committed (nor did their ancestors in many cases) simply because they have “white” skin. (To give a very quick example- about 5% of Southern whites owned slaves, and it was probably a similar percentage of Northerners engaged in the nefarious “triangle trade.” Even if the Bible taught that slavery was a sin, “white” people at the time, many of whom were involved in progressive or immediate abolitionism, cannot be held responsible for being born into a culture in which slavery existed. Their great-great-great-great-great grandchildren less so.) By this logic every Christian who does not actively campaign to enforce immigration law  is guilty of the crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

    •    Oftentimes, the sins referenced are not sins at all. It is not a sin to vote for Donald Trump. It is not a sin to belong to an organization more white people happened to have joined than black people. It is not a sin to live in the suburbs. It is not a sin believe the welfare state should be systematically dismantled. It is not a sin to support respecting the American Flag, or oppose the destruction of Confederate and colonial monuments. It is not a sin to be born into a middle class family. Etc. Etc.

Moral of story- if you are going to use Scripture to correct a sin, MAKE SURE it is actually sin you are correcting. Conversely, if their is an ailment you want to address (for example- poverty, family breakdown, etc. in certain communities), and there is a sin(s) causing the ailment, make sure you correctly identify the sin which is at the root! To misdiagnose a problem, and forcefully place a burden of sin on those who are not directly responsible for the problem, does NOT help those you think you might be helping. For example, if family breakdown in inner city communities can be tied more directly to fathers disregarding their responsibility in those communities, and government welfare policy encouraging such sin, preach against the ACTUAL issues from the passages that address them.

4) Racism should be preached against when it is a paramount not necessarily when it is peripheral. There’s an old Lutheran quote which states:
If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.
The Together for the Gospel Conference was held a few miles from an abortion mill where I’d like to note, if national statistics prove to be true, three times as many black children are being murdered as compared with white children. California is contemplating making conversion therapy a punishable offense. This means pastors who attempt to help those formerly living homosexual and lesbian lifestyles could be punished as criminals. Senator Cory Booker, while Together for the Gospel was taking place, grilled Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo for his Christian beliefs on homosexual perversion. I could go on, but you get the point. When you see certain Christians expending so much energy on issues that, if they are problems today are peripheral, while expending so little energy on the issues that will eventually take away the church’s ability to preach the gospel freely, you have to wonder what’s going on?

James White, Doug Wilson, Phil Johnson, and Todd Friel know what’s going on, and they refuse to go along. That’s why they have been verbally attacked.

To summarize:

It is right to preach against racism when the text of Scripture addresses it, or when there is a sin that needs to be corrected in the church, or the church needs to be warned against wrong cultural practices that are paramount. None of these criteria seem to apply well at all to those who fancy themselves as leading the charge against racism in the church at MLK 50 or Together for the Gospel


When Historians Lie

A contemplation of Christian and Marxist historiography
By Jonathan Harris

Eminent historian Dr. Clyde Wilson in one of his many books on American history expresses this sentiment about the "old-style history:"
History is not an expression of abstract laws, or the record of progress. It is a description of the actions of men, of life, which in turn is an expression of the (partly unknowable) mind of God.
The historical profession has been used, more than most perhaps realize (because they are often the victims of it), to indoctrinate the masses into an often times anti-Christian view of reality. Dr. Wilson talks about two uses of history: as a symbol for social unity and a record of historical fact. Both are important as can be perfectly observed in the biblical account of the nation of Israel.

The history commonly taught in today's schools is disjointed however. The record of historical fact is forced to fit a symbol for social unity that it cannot. Dr. Wilson uses the Civil War event as a perfect example of this, but this disjointedness can also be observed at almost every turn in almost all modern mainstream interpretations.

Portions of the historical record are conveniently left out when they do not fit the progressive narrative (symbol of social unity). What children (who then become adults I might add) walk away with is a firmly held conviction that Abraham Lincoln is a hero because "he freed the slaves," a noble example of social unity indeed if only the historical record matched the symbol. The founding fathers are recruited into the Lincolnian symbol of egalitarian human liberation though the historical record fits this interpretation even less (i.e. Jefferson supposedly wrote of “universal equality” in the Declaration of Independence).

Eventually the symbol can simply not be sustained by the record and a new symbol emerges, not because the record has changed but because the moral framework for judging the record has. The farther away from a Christian ethic the national conscience drifts, the more the old symbols are distorted beyond recognition (i.e. the founding fathers) or destroyed (i.e. Confederate memorials). Over the last decade the symbols of Lincoln and Washington have been painfully stretched to the brink. The rubber band is about to snap, as it has already snapped for symbols of the Old South. As Dr. Wilson writes again:

“The main theme of American history is being shifted from national unity and national achievement to what might be called ethnic multiplicity and ethnic achievement.” (This statement was written in 1982 before it was as obvious as it is in our age that other minority groups, such as homosexuals and transgenders, would start to rise to equal prominence as the overcoming heroes of the national story.) “The new history,” states Dr. Wilson, "has employed the poetic license of mythology without its healing and reconciling motives. It has assumed the prestige of objective, ‘scientific’ history without abiding by its standards.” What Dr. Wilson is saying is rather obvious to someone who thinks in term of presuppositions.

Symbols of national unity are no longer *meant* to bring people together. Swelling with a national pride that comes from an American identity is no longer permissible in the circles of the historian. This is why even supposed Christian historians have thought it morally obligatory to denounce their own country as a place of oppression, apologizing for a past they were not present for as if to perform civil penance for the crime of being a part of it! The intention behind the rising national symbols are rather meant to highlight the sins of the past, often times from a humanistic perspective (i.e. Stonewall national monument). It should be crystal clear that recognizing a moral failing from a biblical perspective is not at all what is being discussed, but rather utilizing a moral failing from a humanist perspective and then recruiting it as a symbol for tearing down national identity. Dr Wilson is again helpful here:
There is a vast difference between the writing of an American history that is a synthesis of the history and experiences of the various groups which have participated in the life of this continent, and presenting the central theme of American history as the mixing of these groups. 
Some conservatives would call this new history the servant of politics. Dr. Wilson himself rightly points out that “it is a product of the state and not of the culture.” But there is also something deeply religious about all this. Dr. Wilson laments that, “We historians . . . have surrendered our critical standards when faced with the question of minority contributions to American history.” The new symbols of national unity—or perhaps “disunity”—force the narrative to continue to sacrifice truth along what appear to be Marxist lines, because they are not really about national unity at all. What is at the bottom of all of this? Dr. Wilson hits bedrock when he writes:
A silent shift of America symbolically out of Western civilization, and attempted divorce of American history from that culture which used to be referred to as Christendom, into formless universalism [is the goal].
And now we are right back where we started.
History is not an expression of abstract laws, or the record of progress. It is a description of the actions of men, of life, which in turn is an expression of the (partly unknowable) mind of God.
History is interpreted in light of a worldview. The Christian worldview that created the Western world and lead to the formation of the United States is no longer the lens through which the historian views his subject. This shift is MORE than a moral one. It also involves DIRECTION. History is no longer composed of stories leading toward a point of biblical consummation. America is no longer viewed as a place in which men and women ordained by God live, learn, and move toward an eternal purpose with a duty to form their culture into a reflection of that purpose THROUGH the gentle and patient providence of God.

If two words can sum up this whole discussion they would be these. Providence vs. Progress. Modern progressives have infected even Christian institutions of higher learning with the disease that *human* progress is the goal of history. The direction is the liberation of man from the constraints of society and nature. Man is capable himself, without a divine will, of creating utopia in his own image. History itself becomes the tracks on which this train runs toward it's final destination. The human story is the reflection of the collective mind in its liberated state. History is not recorded as the passive observation of God's unfolding plan, but rather the active barometer by which to measure humanity's "progress."

The Biblical record however gives us a much different historiography, one in which there is a passive acceptance of a divine plan. It is a reflection of the mind of God as the term "fullness of time" suggests.
The symbols of social unity were meaningful because they were associated with the “glorious deeds of the Lord” (Psalm 78:4, Josh 4:6), passed down by fathers (as opposed to government schools) (Deut 32:7), meant to bring hope (Rom 15:4) and inspire righteous living (1 Cor 10:11), and injected with a transcendent moral standard with a future consummation. National unity according to the law of God was the goal. 

Many do not know that the patriotic hymn “America the Beautiful,” written in 1913 by Katharine Lee Bates contains three verses in addition to the commonly sung first verse. I believe they are appropriate words with which to close this contemplation.
O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassion’d stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev’ry gain divine!

O Beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!


Addicted to Social Media? There is Hope!

By: Jonathan Harris

If it's not obvious to you already, the advent of social media has fundamentally changed Western culture. If this does not put it in perspective, I don't know what will- There are adults today who do not remember a time when half the population was not looking down at their phones in public settings. It's just normal at this point to carry on a conversation with a family member or friend even though half of their attention is being given to a five by two inch screen. And if some of us are to be honest, sometimes we are the ones treating our phones as more worthy of attention than the images of God right in front of us!

Studies and articles have been coming out for years decrying the drug-like effects social media can have on the minds of humans. One recent article suggests:
There might be several reasons for this addiction but one the most prominent reason is increasing distance between the family members and lack of belongingness in the youth.
Though this may not be the only reason for the current epidemic it is likely a strong contributor. Scrolling for meaning and finding none is the situation our culture is in. Perhaps the, "Let's protest and actually do something!" crowd is recoiling in frustration against the meaningless feelings that come with trying to extract human value from a digital device.

Now in all fairness, social media is not all bad. I use it, and I'm thankful for it. It connects me (though superficially sometimes) to others and exposes me to useful information. But...then there's the other side. It sucks the time right out of my life! Or I should say, it did. . . until I realized something.

There are still settings in which I can overhear an older person complain about the "kids and their phones!" My grandpa will sometimes say with a sigh, when referring to such violators of the old conversational norms, "They like looking at screens." These complaints are diminishing however as grandparents are becoming just as hooked as their grandchildren. Again, this is not all bad. Parents and grandparent can see highlights from their children and grand-children's lives from half way around the world in instant time! What a marvel of the modern age! But there are some things about this that potentially are not good. How often can connectedness with someone we ought to be close with become restricted to cat videos and what we ate for supper?

My experience with social media changed somewhat when I traveled to Turkey last year. I had already recoiled against what I thought was a superficial use of Facebook and had relegated my page to the purpose of posting political thoughts aimed at convincing others and cataloging pictures I had taken from year to year. Of course, the political posts, in addition to convincing some, lost me Facebook friends who disagreed or who wanted to use their social media as an escape from the constant barrage of politics they already felt living in the world. The pictures earned me a substantial amount of "likes," and this did seem rewarding. I got into a habit of checking as often as possible to see how many "likes" I had, or responses to arguments I was engaged in. It zapped my day away without me realizing it. But I was no different than my peers who were also hooked to their phones, or was I?

Into an Istanbul coffee shop I walked. Ok, it was Starbucks. But in Istanbul, the atmosphere was different than what I had remembered in the States. We were told by the contacts we had in the region that Facebook was very popular in Istanbul. This was evidenced to me by the fact that I was getting friend requests from random strangers simply for checking in at various tourist destinations. The difference though was this: Turks used social media differently. As I looked around the coffee shop (and every subsequent restaurant and coffee shop), I noticed that everyone my age (a millennial) was well dressed, had good posture, and was engaged in face to face dialogue. Everyone had phones, but I did not see anyone using them when talking with someone else. Young people who appeared to be on dates did not engage in PDA of any kind. Rather they listened to one another with eyes locked on each other's faces.

What was going on here? Was I transported to the 1960s? No, that wasn't possible because occasionally someone would whip a phone out, but not while engaged in conversation, and not to the extent I had noticed in the States. An important aspect of Turkish culture may explain the differences between their world and ours when it comes to the use of technology. The advertisements in Turkey featured nuclear families. A mother, father, and more than one child would smile while holding up a product of some kind. In the 1990s such advertisements were common in the States, but slowly, over time advertisements began to feature peer groups and individuals. The reasons for this are not important for this discussion. What is important is this: The Turks had not yet become the individualistic (and I will venture to add narcissistic) culture so prominently displayed in the West. Sitting on a commuter train I noticed men still giving their seats up for the elderly and even a pregnant women. There was a sense of community that often seems missing in urban and suburban Western regions.

Then it dawned on me. The Turks had the same access to technology that those in the U.S. had, and yet they managed it differently. Was it because they were not quite as into themselves? Now don't get me wrong, there are a plethora of social problems in Turkey, many of which modern Western societies are miles ahead in, but there seemed to be an exception in this one area.

When a child grows in the States, oftentimes they are raised by the TV. Whenever the parent, who generally does not discipline the child, wants a break, screens are their ally. Screens aren't always bad, but they are overused. The child then in turn learns to glean entertainment and information from technology. The distraction is reinforced as a good thing by the parent, because the parent is rewarded with an opportunity to rest themselves from the crankiness of a disrespectful child. As the child grows older this pattern does not stop. The child is hooked on technology, oftentimes finding it difficult to hold conversations or think deeply. Their brains are occupied by a non-stop barrage of information and they become addicted to it. On social media, a child can block the disagreeable and find groups of friends and strangers who who accept the online version of themselves they have created. Social media accepts them when their parents do not. It offers "likes" when they're made fun of at school by classmates. It becomes the affirmation center. It gives instant gratification without working hard for it. It trains in superficial people pleasing, and discourages physical and mental exertion. In short, social media becomes a person's friend, something the Turks have not accepted as a possibility.

The problem is, social media is not a friend. It is a tool, and not one that should be the primary source of affirmation and acceptance. If social media becomes a channel for the worship of the god who is ourselves, it will leave us dry, but at the same time wanting more. All idols require their sacrifices.

I knew that my problem with social media was nearly as bad as some, but I knew that It wasn't right. I was falling into the direction of the culture around me to some extent. The reason I knew this is because when I went to bed my phone would be the last thing I'd look at, and when I woke up it was the first. I didn't usually go more than an hour without looking at it. However, I noticed when I was in areas without service I was more relaxed, likable, spiritual, happy, etc. The phone was draining me of my humanity. I knew I needed to make a change.

Here's what I did.

1) No phones in bed. I communicated this to my wife as well, and we've been a lot better in this area than we used to be.
2) No more than an hour on social media per a day. I literally time it using ATracker
3) No spending more time on social media than I do praying and reading my Bible.

Since I suspect that living in real familiar and social community is the antidote to the endorphin driven quest for "likes," I have made a concerted effort to put down my phone when my wife is talking to me. I don't log in to Facebook when we are on a date. I call my family members on the phone instead of merely posting things on their walls.

So far the results in my own life have been wonderful. I'm less stressed, more productive, and closer to the Lord than I was before. Who would have thought a group of young Turks at a Starbucks would help me see what I was increasingly missing out on- real life!


Trump, Hitler, and the Politics of Hysteria

by Frank Russo

The far Left can't go five minutes without a comparison between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. But like President Trump or not you, there’s no way to rationally draw an ideological line between him and Hitler for many reasons. Trump’s rise to the presidency was completely different than Hitlers in a very significant way. Their policy differences also leave little doubt that these two are fundamentally different on a root level. Let me explain.

Trump was elected democratically. Hitler was not. In fact records show that the NSDAP only received about 35% of the vote. The difference lies in how democracy was set up in Weimar Republic Germany. Most importantly it was not a two party system as ours is. In fact it had a multitude of parties with the communists, social democrats, Catholic Center party and numerous other parties. In fact Hitler never “ran” for office. He tried to seize power violently in 1923 for which he was arrested. In 1933 a coalition government was formed by the majority conservative aligned parties in which Hitler, to placate his vote of 35%,(constituting the largest power block belonging to a single party in Weimar), was put in as Chancellor. This was in the hopes of controlling him which failed following the burning of the Reichstag and the death of President Paul Von Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler quickly granted himself and his party more and more executive power in response to what was a genuine crisis facing Germany in the form of the Moscow backed German communists. Hitler's brutal reign of oppression and suppression would follow immediately after. 

Why is this important? Because we need to know what we're talking about when comparing and contrasting. Like Trump of not being a populist or a nationalist doesn't make one “literally Hitler” unless George Washington, Charles De Gaulle and Winston Churchill were also Nazis. Donald Trump began his campaign, (something Hitler did not ever do), and won himself by a electoral vote,(again something Hitler did not do as he was appointed),. He has made no rapid moves to ascribe to the executive branch undue amounts of power nor has he exercised his power in such a way as to lack precedent. Rhetoric alone does not a dictator make and it is important to note that Hitler did not allow criticism of him. There was no Bill Maher show to incessantly mock him. There was no Twitter or YouTube and there certainly was not a women's March in Berlin. 

Another thing to note is the lack of racial policy. By 1937 Hitler and his party had passed the Nuremberg laws, regulating activity and rights open to Jews and other undesirables and activities not open to them. In fact Trump's son and law and daughter and grandchild are Jewish. It has been a year and a few months since Donald Trump has taken office. Yet there has been no work towards a racial policy. Many claim his speeches pertaining to illegal immigrants are really dog whistles about Mexicans. This comment however, is riddled with racist assumptions. The first is that all Hispanic people you see are Mexican, the second is that all illegal aliens are mexican and the third is that illegal immigrants are a separate race. In order to be “racist” one would need to hold that one race is superior to another. Illegal is an immigration status not a race and if you're assuming without proper evidence that it is a dog whistle you are acting by unbiblical principles. Beware the Christian who froths at the mouth about Trump’s racism. 

Trump ran on an almost isolationist campaign promising to pull out of NATO if other nations didn't pay up and other comments made about our involvement in the middle East. He has since reneged on these promises but if we're comparing him to Hitler one must know what Hitler promised and did. From the onset Hitler promised military expansion and lebensraum in the east, (Russia and the Baltic states),. He also promised to regain/gain lost German lands and populations in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria and Eastern France. Trump has not talked about expansion of territory. He has spoken about rebuilding the military but so did Bush, Reagan, Nixon and Kennedy. Nobody called them Hitler, wait yes they did. 

What needs to be understood is the left's constant reliance on the “Hitler” card. I've seen it done in conservative circles as well but nowhere near as much as leftists do and the thing about it is that that creates more Hitlers than at any time since 1945. We are fueling this. In my case leftist propaganda certainly fueled my pre-Christian beliefs. If one pulls up on Google statistics about right wing hate groups we will quickly find a BBC study saying that hate groups are on the rise in the u.s. The main source of their belief? Southern Poverty Law Center. The same people that cite everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders as holding Nazi sympathies. This includes Focus on the Family and Milo Yiannopoulos, the Gay, Jewish, British conservative commentator who makes constant jokes about his preference for interracial relationships. This is not to justify his actions but it is to highlight how ridiculous the SPLC’s system of classification is. Ben Shapiro is also on their list. Both men have had college students riot to prevent them from speaking. The doublethink it requires to call the opposition Nazis while rioting and burning your own campus to prevent two Jewish men from speaking is astounding. 

The SPLC says that there are over 1,000 hate groups operating within the u.s with over 10,000 members. This is against an overall population of 324 million people in the u.s. which means about .03% of the u.s population is a member of a white supremacist group. This in comparison to Islamic extremism in the world. There are over 1.9 billion Muslims in the world in which it is estimated that 7% is engaged in extremist violence. That's 75 million people engaged in holy war. That is accounting for only those who engage in violence. The unknown number of sympathizers must be large indeed. In the united states there 9.9 million Muslims, of which is 3.75% of the overall u.s population. Let's apply the conservative estimate of 5% to active jihadis for the u.s population. That is 450,000 men and women who have possibly been radicalized. 

However, Muslims are still a minority in the United States. Look at other nations where they are not. France and England notably. In fact of you look at statistics more British Muslims have joined ISIS than have joined the British armed forces. Yet if you look up hate crimes in the U.S Charlottesville is the first to come up. However, that is amongst the slew of other notably false hate crimes such as the woman who claimed three male Trump supporters ripped her Hijab off on a New York subway. Police resources were wasted investigating this crime and it was proven to be false. No charges were brought against the woman. Nothing more was said but numerous people went on believing this crime happened. The news sources that so eagerly reported this crime, CNN, MSNBC and many others were slow to or downright refused to print or report a retraction. In fact these fabricated hate crimes are all too often brushed over as genuine with no consequences. 

Charlottesville is high profile however. And it gets granted a huge amount of scrutiny. Like them or not America grants everyone a right to free speech and these men and women were granted the right to rally before it was unfairly retracted for political motivations. When they went ahead ANTIFA,(a noted terrorist organization that uses violence to accomplish it's ends), disrupted the rally violently causing a reaction. I have seen the first hand videos. The punch a Nazi in the face slogans and the bottle throwing. Blocking highways and attacking people. Yet these are considered to be single incidents to the media. The Charlottesville incident however, that is a condemnation of Trump and his supporters, (who are all neo Nazis to the media),. 

Celebrities are in on it as well. From Ashley Judd screeching that the ghost of Hitler is in the white house to Jim Jeffries screaming profanities at Piers Morgan saying “Hitler didn't kill Jews on the first day” we can see Hollywood flipping. In fact no anti semitism can be traced to Trump himself which is odd for a Nazi. He's painted by an association he has disavowed numerously. A disavowal from president Trump however, is not enough. He must spend his presidency atoning for it. In fact he has to spend his presidency not doing what he campaigned for to make the left happy. But Obama escaped his association from the hateful Jeremiah Wright and Terrorist Bill Ayers without a sigh. The media said that he was a separate individual and couldn't be painted as one. But Trump is guilty solely on his supposed associations. 

When it comes to Trump’s comments about African Americans none can be found. In fact he only cited source of his anti African racism is a comment with foul language about “*blank* nations”. The left’s reaction was scathing. In fact I saw many posts saying “he calls OUR nations that”. Two leftist dogmas are defeated by this assumption. The first is that any nation “belongs” to any group of people. The idea that African nations belong to unique African people is racist and discriminatory. The second is that immigration is good because these people have horrible chances in their own nation and need better lives. If Trump was wrong, and Somalia is really a sparkling Paradise then there is no need for immigration. Leftists in their Hysteria cannot even keep their stories straight and will find any excuse to justify their own preconceived notion of President Trump. They assume his motive and then look for evidence to support their verdict instead of vice versa.

Why is Hitler so polarizing though? Especially to leftists. The spectre of Stalin, who killed 20-30 million people, or Mao who killed 60 million should be more polarizing. Even Che Guevara, whose face can be found on leftist t shirts, is the perfect anti progressive. He was the executioner at La Cabantuana prison and oversaw 2,500 executions ranging from political enemies to homosexuals and kids who listened to rock and roll. Che even said that “the black is indolent and lazy and spends his money frivolously”. Yet Jay Z wears his face on his shirt. What makes the Austrian painter the most horrifying in a century of secular violence?

Utopia is my answer. Hitler's Utopia is different than the one leftists hold. His was racial while theirs is classless. That is why everyone against them is racist and their heroes are unblemished. 

Nazis have grown in number but nowhere near the level of hiding under every bed. The alt right is doomed to failure as they are not homogenous and not a dedicated party. Every evil has its roots in Godlessness and every evil and sin is cured at Calvary. I left that life behind me because Christ's love for me is greater than my hatred of others. To anyone who feels these things. To feel disenfranchised, hated or alone I hope you hear me and most of all I hope you hear Christ. From the Nazi to ANTIFA none of us are clean and our hatred and violence towards each other proves. Your Utopias are built upon sand and will crash with the surf. Only the Lord has the way. God bless all of you.


Why Moderates Can't Save Us From "Extremism"

By: Jonathan Harris

A recent article in the New York Times actually draws attention to a real issue. The author notices that there is a problem in communication between the left and the right. This is for the most part true. However, the author’s solution will never work.

One of the fallacies of our modern time is thinking that extremism is the problem. As long as people weren’t so extreme they could actually have dialogue with one another and make progress. This could not be further from the truth. Someone who is extreme in regard to their love for others does not need to be moderated. Similarly, someone who is extreme in regard to hating others does not need to be moderated. One needs to be championed and the other defeated.

The author seems to think that the solution for our political problems is going to come from the moderates. The moderates though are just as human as the liberals and conservatives. Consider the reason someone may describe themselves as moderate. Perhaps they have not thought through the issues as deeply and therefore are unwilling to take a side. It should go without saying that no solution will come from someone who has not thought through it. Or it may be that they have an alternative view on a particular topic. If this is the case then a third potential for extremism has just developed. Problem not solved. Still a third option could be they may have a chosen side but their tone is softer and more attractive. This probably comes close to the moderate described by the author. So potentially sneaky extremists, or extremists with better manners are going to save us?

There is no way to defeat trolls and smug elitists by condescending to trolls and smug elitists. The solution must come from defeating evil wherever it is found by another form of extremism. An extremism that teaches loving radically, speaking truthfully, and not mincing words when it comes to evil is the only way to combat the alleged extremism the author complains about.

What the author is really complaining about is a left and a right devoid of Christian value. The solution is to go back to Christian standards of belief and etiquette. Those will not come from moderating between two standards devoid of them. They will come from adhering to the once cherished standard of Christianity- something that Is not part of the make up of the ideal moderate because it sounds too conservative. Political discourse got worse when Christianity became less influential. A failure to recognize this is why the author’s solution will not work.


Land Seizure from White Farmers is Inherently Anti-Christian

By: David Harris
Many have heard by now the astonishing decision by the South African Parliament last week to give the go-ahead for land seizure of white-owned farms without compensation. While the decision must go under constitutional review, the very fact that it is a consideration should be morally appalling to South Africans and the rest of the world, regardless of political affiliation or the color of one’s skin. Why? Because the decision to take white-owned land is inherently anti-Christian. What makes it anti-Christian? Well, let me explain by briefly laying out some of the presuppositions behind land seizure, and then I will lay out why these presuppositions do not fit into a Christian worldview.

1) The problems that South Africa faces are due to a legacy and a history of oppression by white colonization

This is the most frequent assumption behind justifying land seizure or policies like BEE (Black Economic Empowerment). The assumption is founded in the faulty belief that the “white races” of England and Holland brought only terror and oppression to South Africa and that historic mistreatment is to blame for all current problems. While it is no doubt correct that there have been countless instances of mistreatment by whites upon blacks (and vice-versa) since Bartholomew Dias landed on Dias Beach in the 15th century, it is utterly flawed to assert that only oppression has been brought. How do we know? South Africa has long been the beacon of light on the “Dark Continent,” never having experienced much of devastating civil war and genocide that nations throughout Africa still experience. This is not due to the fact that the explorers who came to South Africa were white, but it has everything to do with the fact that they were typically Christian and their culture had been influenced as such for the better part of a thousand years. If one surveys World History they will come to find that a nation’s freedom and prosperity is directly proportional to its Christian influence. It is because of a Christian influence and the application of a biblical worldview that South Africa has been so prosperous despite being oftentimes ruled by unchristian leaders and policies (for example, Apartheid). It’s also important to note that the forces that have dismantled oppressive policies in the midst of white rule were almost universally motivated by Christianity. To reject the ideas of the colonizers in general requires a reject of the worldview that motivated them to settle in South Africa in the first place – you must reject Christianity or distort it beyond recognition (as the Zion Christian Church and other cults like it have done throughout the last century and a half).

2) The fact that whites own the majority of the land in South Africa demonstrates gross inequality                         

This presupposition comes in many forms throughout the world and is very easy to finagle into an emotional “that’s not fair” kind of argument. It is still true to this day that white people own the majority of land in South Africa while representing a small minority of the population. However, this is due primarily to commercial and game farming, both occupations and industries that are vitally important to the South African economy, and both requiring extensive land to accomplish. Quite frankly, the loss of these industries would spell perpetual economic doom for South Africa, as food is needed to live (and South African food is some of the best in the world, by the way) and the game farms provide much need economic stimulation through tourism. One need only to assess the history of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe to see this disaster in perpetual action. Aside from the economic disaster that will inevitably ensue, it should be recognize that forced redistribution of wealth in any form (including land) is not a Christian idea (no, Acts 2 does not endorse political redistribution of wealth). It is in fact, an inherently communistic and anti-Christian doctrine that flies in the face of almost anything that resembles good and decency as a blatant violation of the 8th Commandment and has played out in every corner of the world where it has been tried in miserable failure, usually resulting in a profound loss of life or quality of life. We must ask the simple question: should land or wealth be taken from one and given to another based solely on the color of skin of the involved parties? If so, how can this be biblically justified? Perhaps because the land was stolen to begin with by the ancestors of the whites? That leads us to our next presupposition…

3) The land in question was originally stolen from the black majority by the white minority during colonization
While I’m sure that someone could dig up some instances of land seizure by whites, typically land was appropriated by treaty with African tribes. The events that led up to the Battle of Blood River are illustrative of this (when the agreed upon treaty was not honored by the treacherous Dingane). The resulting victory by the Dutch Voortrekkers led to a lasting, though at times tenuous, peace with the Zulus. The long-term result of this “land grab” by whites has been the propagation of Christianity among the Zulus leading to many Christian strongholds in Zululand today. In a more general sense, the white settlers brought with them the idea of cash crops and livestock - this was not practiced by the indigenous peoples to any degree resembling what was common place throughout the Western World. The result of commercial farming (for profit) has been the economic betterment not only of those who run the farms, but also of the countless employees, many of them indigenous people who have benefitted from the increased standard of living. The consequence is that more land is currently in white hands in terms of acreage, but this will not be forever. As more black farmers learn commercial farming, the ratio of white to black farms will shift – but this must take time, not be forced, as noted above, the result will be an economic disaster.  
To seize land from whites will not solve a single economic or social problem that South Africa now faces. It will instead more explicitly mark an overall return to animistic tribalism – the darkness that the light of Christianity has exposed for several centuries in Sub-Saharan Africa thanks to the efforts of missionaries and subsequent African pastors. If a racist white person (of whom there are many) ever talks about the “eternal glory of whiteness” that has transcended the epochs, they are telling a rank and disgusting lie. Those who hail from a place of traditionally white complexion come from equally animistic, tribal cultures that once lived in utter darkness. Most of those traditionally “white” cultures are heading back to the pagan direction where they came from at the speed of a bullet train (for examples of this, see: United States/European popular entertainment and abortion statistics). Reverting back to pagan roots has done irreversible damage to the West – South Africa should learn from the examples of these nations. South Africa will not do itself a single favor by curtailing to the destructive racial Marxism that has already destroyed so much of Africa and the rest of the World. Only Christianity and an applied Christian worldview will bring peace, there is no hope in any other system or policy, not the least seizing land based on skin color.


Christianity saved me from white nationalism- helps me love those in it, says former Richard Spencer fan

By Frank Russo

I have an interesting take on the issue of white nationalism. It’s not because I am a self proclaimed expert on it like the SPLC, or because I am a lawyer who has worked to prosecute hate crimes. It’s because I am a white nationalist. Well rather I was one. It may be an odd thing to confess, especially in this political atmosphere, but it is vastly important to who I am and as evidence as to how the Lord works in people’s lives. I’m also writing this because I think that what I have to say is important especially in light of how people think these feelings and thoughts develop and how they react to it. How the country is trying to counteract this issue is dangerous and counter-intuitive. In fact it is breeding more Nazis than at any other time since 1945.

Let me start by saying that I wasn’t an out and out Neo-Nazi. I was an internet troll. I liked to post anti semitic memes and harass social justice warriors on twitter, However I can say with a little bit of justification that I was a little above the average Neo Nazi. I read the works that I thought were necessary to become one. Mein Kampf, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and all sorts of other tracts on National Socialism as a theory. I even read the program of the NSDAP and eagerly thought and discussed these ideas with friends and family in private, seeking to convince them of the dangers of the Jewish menace lying in wait on our doorstep. Was I always this way? An angry kid who came home from school in a rage at whatever leftist propaganda had been fed to me that day? Thinking of violence and ways to get even with those who were denying me my place in an imagined racial hierarchy? The answer is no. Not at all. Nazis don’t just poof into existence. They grow through their own experiences of the world surrounding them. Let me begin by saying that my childhood was mostly normal. I grew up in suburban New York with both parents in the picture. Despite the stereotypes they weren’t racist. Well not “real” racists. Sounds odd I know but let me explain. We’d watch the news and there would be some riot or mugging and my Dad, a product of the wild 60’s generation, would make some sort of racially charged comment and my mom would nod along. However, we would associate with blacks within the family circle and without quite often. And these interactions would be jovial, downright respectful and even familial. I was forced to call my Grandma’s friend’s husband, who happened to be black, uncle as a show of respect. My parents grew up in a race conscious generation where it was a clear cut mentality of us and them. My dad inherited racial views from my grandfather but not in any other sense than outwardly. He had many black friends that he spoke fondly of through the years. In fact I can recount numerous stories of his. So why the racial comments? Why the outward sign of discrimination? My best answer is its just how that generation happens to be. Whenever we got down to talking about race, and I would try and convince my dad otherwise, he would admit that he didn’t dislike blacks as a whole or even dislike them because of their race. He told me that his dislike would stem from his views on how their culture has shaped wide ranging attitudes amongst the black community as he saw it. This also extended to whites he deemed lazy or useless.

Now that’s not a Christian worldview certainly, but it’s not a “racist” worldview either. I had a racist worldview but once again not always. In fact I used to be a huge supporter of multiculturalism. As a kid I made friends with all people and during the 2012 election I was pretty happy that Obama was running. Everyone seemed to like him, my parents liked him and he seemed to be pretty nice so I liked Obama too and I was happy that he won. It wasn't any real type of support I get it. I was only 10 after all but even then I always talked about Obama like he was this great guy. You can ask my classmates in elementary school. Even then I was an annoying person who cared about stuff light years ahead of me. I didn’t give Obama much thought after he won, but over the years when I became more and more aware and informed, (again I always cared about stuff my peers thought was stupid), I began to dislike him. His racially divisive rhetoric, his failure to heed his campaign promises in regards to the middle east, his abandonment of Israel, (I was a huge supporter of Israel at the time too), and his gun control stance where things I found intolerable. So I turned against him and turned into a dyed in the wool Conservative. I campaigned for Nan Hayworth in 2012, (she lost), and supported Mitt Romney heavily with my entire family in the same year, (he lost too),. That’s where things began to go really wrong for me, ideologically speaking. How? I kept asking myself. I was convinced that this wasn’t right. Obama was not standing for America and he was working to undermine the American ideal as I saw it. It was an existential crisis for me. I felt like the world was ending, though to be clear I wasn’t crying in the streets and burning stuff down. It was more of a quiet depression. I think somewhere along this line I abandoned the America I saw. I got that belief from G.I. Joe and old war movies where we were always the good guys who stood up for truth. Well truth lost in my eyes and I was searching for a reason why. I continued to grow as most kids do and I began to notice things. The first was that I was an outcast. A fat, white kid who constantly tried to convince everyone the country was falling apart while they walked on by. I had no friends, no girlfriend and no real happiness. I felt utterly alone throughout a good amount of my school years and what’s worse is I saw all my peers begin to embrace the very ideals I had warned them against and then they started to mock me. I couldn’t handle being questioned. I had put all that work in over the years to being informed and constructing a worldview and reasons why and I was defeated by the cookie cutter one handed out to them in the classroom because I was outnumbered. The other part of it was that I never put enough thought into how to best convince. Screaming in a rage doesn’t make you smart, it makes you look like a madman.

Enter the 8th grade and a Black Muslim sjw English teacher. We spent the entire year writing about black history and I am not lying on this. I was also a huge fan of Israel still so when we only spent a week on the Holocaust and The Boy in the Striped Pajamas I was outraged. This is where my racial consciousness slowly began to kick in for real. I wasn’t shouting Nazi ideology or anything yet but I stopped talking about equality as much as I was. In this ELA class of honors students I was one of a few white males and out of the few that were there I was the only one not on a sports team.I continued to stew for a few more years, being the punching bag of most everyone who wanted a piece for a few years. A kid can develop a lot of anger and I tried to channel that into debates. I would engage anyone and everyone I even joined the debate team. Again outnumbered at every turn and losing because of it. I wasn’t content to be correct in my own mind. I had to convince everyone that I was right and that they had to follow me. It was pride that kept me angry. It was pride that kept me up at night trying to convince our generation that we couldn’t keep smoking pot and not getting involved. Enter my cousin Kacy. Strong, smart and got anything he wanted. I think he could sense it. Everyone could. I was smart, but malleable. I could be turned into anything that was needed as long as I was convinced I choose that path for my own good. He told me about the Alt-Right and he sent me books and links and all sorts of stuff. My worldview took a twist. Everything I knew was wrong and everything being taught to me by the people I despised had a motive. For so long I had seen my peers encouraged to develop a racial consciousness. In retrospect you can see the ideology of white guilt in action before white privilege was even a term. Black History Month was forcibly celebrated in schools. Happy Holidays replaced Merry Christmas. These were small things and in conjunction they became big things.The birth of my white identity came soon after. If its okay to be black and proud why is it not okay to be white and proud? And was I proud, not of my race but of me. That’s the major mistake people make about racism. It’s not really pride in one’s race but in oneself. I wanted to proud of myself but that was only part of it. I wanted others to be proud of me too and I didn’t have any means to achieve it. How do I get others to respect me and join me in brotherhood? Superficial appearances. It worked for the other clicks. The jocks all congratulated themselves on being sporty and so on with all other interactions I saw. Being on the other side of group bullying I saw how they worked together. How these small things tied them together when I would see them fight each other the day after teaming up on me. Sports was out of the question and I wasn’t cool or funny. But I was white and smart so I quickly joined in with the online troll community. It felt euphoric. I was finally getting back and even with all the people I thought wronged me. Nobody could tell who I was because I hid behind a picture and a name. I called people all sorts of slurs and said things I’d never get away with in public. I was unbeatable. I was fighting the powers that be and I had a sense of brotherhood…….well I thought I did.

When I saw behavior I thought counter to the goals of our movement I reacted and it earned me few friends. I attacked anyone on the right I saw as trying to subvert the movement or trying to hijack it. Conspiracies were everywhere and Jews, Catholics, feminists and leftists were all at the center of it. I was alone again in my own crusade and I had never felt more alone and depressed. I had a friend at the time though who saw what was happening. He brought me to his church and had me hear the words of the Lord. It wasn’t instant. Over time though, a change began to happen. I no longer wanted to hurt people and I spent less and less time picking fights on twitter. Eventually I began to hate myself more than any other group. I began to see that these racial feelings were part of what I felt was a lifetime of being wronged, of being hated. It took more time but eventually I came to Christ and had to acknowledge my evil. I stopped worshiping the swastika and bowed to the cross. Christ has worked a miracle in my life that his blood has saved me from the justly deserved fate that was in store for me. But is that the end of the white nationalist? No it’s not. I struggle often with these old feelings. Especially when I am confronted with the old nemesis that only Nazism seemed to bring release from. Abandoning racial hatred and white nationalism did not lead to me loving the left and embracing it’s doctrines as many who might have started to read this wanted to hear. I am not a propaganda piece. I am one story of millions of the Lord’s mercy. But a lot of these feelings and pains are still there. I still have to deal with the earthly consequences of my sin. I wake up everyday and promise myself to avoid things that will trigger my Nazi response but it’s not long before I am confronted with the equal evil and sin of the opposition party that demands “if you're not with us you're against us”. I read an article from Huffington Post, (“Toddlers Understand Consent” or “Trump’s Diet Habit is Dangerous to Our Democracy”) or whatever such swill is peddled I can’t help but have an echo in my mind demanding I return to the philosophy of hatred and struggle. My mind whispers that my only sin is having given up the struggle and abandoned the war. A interaction I had a few weeks back really hurt but also helped me. I liked a friends post about the gospel being the cure to racism and agreed wholeheartedly. However, I also read the comments below and was utterly dismayed at what seems to be a large attitude amongst the Christian community. A black gentleman after having a discourse on what racism is asked me “what are you doing to fight racism”. That hit me and not for the reasons you may think. I was hurt because he put such an accusation on me by insinuation, (I’m not helping oppressed or marginalized communities), when he genuinely did not know that I struggle everyday to decrease hate in the world by one. Me. Everyday I struggle with this and some days I come close to hating myself for it. It’s then that I realize that attitudes like that create more Nazis. It created me after all. By laying responsibility for one sin upon the feet of one group of people in it’s entirety you are guilty of the same sin you accuse others of committing. I am sorry for what other people have experienced, regardless of skin color or creed. But racial pride is not a white sin, it’s a world sin that every race is guilty of, every person is guilty of and is part of why Christ had to die on the cross for our salvation. If your eyes are constantly to the past, looking to rectify for the sins of past people by making others pay today how can you claim to be within Christ? I was doing the same thing. I was looking to get even too and nothing kept me further from the lord than that. Forgiveness is always an easy concept to grasp but never an easy action to commit, but if we are to ask forgiveness from the Lord we must forgive those who have wronged us in turn.

What does that mean for me today? Well it means one thing. Empathy. I understand and feel sorry for those still stuck in the circle of racial hatred. I was there and I understand why they are there. I can also tell you that “punch a Nazi in the face” doesn’t convert anyone to what will really help them.In fact if you come at the issue from a sjw leftist push towards utopia you will get nothing in return because you cannot combat hate with hate. Only the true perfect love of the Lord can do that.


Reagan Conservative or Lincoln Republican?

By: Jonathan Harris

The Gipper casts a long shadow, at least with reference to modern GOP political candidates. We’ve all heard the campaign speeches invoking Reagan’s leadership, praising his accomplishments, and harkening back to the America of the 1980s. Republican voters are still lead to believe every four years that they are voting for Reagan’s next term regardless of the often-time obvious differences between whoever the current nominee is and the 40th president. Nevertheless, Reagan remains the template both for winning and for governing. His cowboy boots are hard to fill, unless of course your name happens to be Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln and Reagan have a lot in common right? They were both Republican presidents, and today’s Republican candidates are universally obligated to eternally remind us all of this fact. While it may be true that both do share some things in common, such as commitment to a strong military; an honest look at the political philosophy of both men will reveal mutually exclusive principles concerning the structure of the national government. Though perhaps imperfectly, Reagan did attempt to stand in the tradition of Jefferson, a rarity in modern times. Lincoln’s descendants, who are obvious by certain “family resemblances,” can be spotted in both major political parties. Indeed, the quintessential progressive of the early 20th century, Woodrow Wilson, though he had strong feelings for the South (he was born in Virginia), adored Lincoln for his methods, namely his circumnavigation of the Constitution. It is not a stretch to say, there likely would not have been a Wilson, if there were never a Lincoln. The progressive era would either have looked much different, or would not have been progressive.

Many of today’s Conservatives would be appalled to hear the name of their Republican hero sharing an unfavorable mention with a Democrat president like Wilson. This reaction is understandable. They would not want to hear Reagan’s name used in a similar manner. But a significant difference exists between Reagan and Lincoln: a difference so fundamental that it allows Reagan’s reputation to escape Lincoln’s predicament. 

Here is a pop quiz to illustrate this difference.

Three quotes are listed below. One comes from the mouth of Ronald Reagan, another is the voice of Abraham Lincoln, and the third is a figure to be revealed on the other side of the quiz. First, try to guess which quotations belong to Reagan and Lincoln. Then, determine which quotation “does not belong.”

Quote 1
The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories. . . formed for technical administrative purposes. These states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of these so-called states.
Quote 2
The Union is older than the States and, in fact created them as States. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. The Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are. 
Quote 3
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal government.
If you guessed that the second quotation belongs to Lincoln and the third quotation belongs to Reagan you would be correct! Ronald Reagan’s quote is also clearly out of step with the first two and therefore “does not belong.” Now for the unavailing of the mysterious first quotation. The author is neither a member of the Republican nor the Democrat party. In fact, he is not an American at all. The first quotation is actually an excerpt from "Mein Kampf" written by Adolf Hitler. Hitler looked to Lincoln’s centralization of American states as an model by which to centralize the twenty one states of the Weimar Republic. Reagan is the only one of the three who believed that the Federal Government is a creation of, and therefore accountable too, the States.

Reagan’s disagreement with both Lincoln and Hitler is not a trivial one. It is fundamental. Lincoln believed the States ONLY became a legally significant entities at the point in which they adopted the Constitution. "The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status," he stated. However, was it not delegates from "States" who gathered together in Philadelphia?  Indeed, the Constitution itself reads, "We the people of the United States. . ." Lincoln emphasized the word “people” as a way to create a direct connection between the national government and individual citizens while bypassing the States. What Lincoln missed is that the word "people" was not a substantive insertion. The original draft of the preamble read, "We the people of the states of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, etc." It was the committee on style that decided to withdraw the names of States whose ratifications of the Constitution were pending. Substituting the names of the individual States for “United States,” made the document less presumptions and more marketable.

Lincoln’s vision was for a perpetual national government with a common purpose uninhibited by the varied interests of States. His legacy with respect to this point is undeniable. West Virginia was illegally created by the executive, martial law was declared in parts of Maryland, Tennessee, and Missouri, while States that wished to peaceably secede were invaded. Because of the circumstance of a war, Lincoln was much more successful than Reagan at accomplishing his agenda. For all of Reagan’s effort to give responsibilities usurped by the national government back to the States, he could not even gain the political capital necessary to eliminate the Department of Education. Nevertheless, his vision, inspired by Thomas Jefferson, does live on. Perhaps the turmoil in the Republican party has something to do with this. Two mutually exclusive visions living beside one another represented by two seemingly immovable sacred pillars. Both cannot live together indefinitely. To borrow Lincoln’s utilization of Jesus’ words, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Traditional Americans must decide, will they be Reagan Conservatives, or Lincoln Republicans?


The Insanity of Infidelity and The Sacred Beauty of Monogamy

A husband comes home from work on a chilly January day. He parks his car, walks up the sidewalk to his front door and unlocks the deadbolt. He removes his heavy coat and scarf, hanging them on the vanity but clutches to his briefcase, neglecting to put it down. As he enters the hallway he hears the muffled sounds of laughs and giggles coming from his bedroom. He starts to walk up the stairs somewhat slowly in an apparent effort not to overly announce his arrival. The sounds get louder as he approaches the end of the hall. He slowly presses the door open, and what we all expect next is happening. His wife and another man are wrapped in each other’s embrace… in his bed… right in front of him.

What happens next?

Well, if this a country song (especially one from the 1960s) then the man draws his 44, which he has on him at all times, and without hesitation unloads every last round on the two people in front of him. Once the neighbors call the police the man is locked up and spends the last few hours before his hanging regretting that he killed his wife and her lover… or he doesn’t regret it, It really depends on the song.

If this is a modern biographical drama then it’s at this moment that the man, without uttering so much as a “what’s going on here?” drops his briefcase and rushes down the stairs, out the door and into his car. He drives straight to his place of employment and tells his boss that he quits the monotonous job that he’s come to hate. He then goes straight to the airport and begins to travel the world to find his true self on the African plains, the Asian steppes and the Paris streets. He finds multiple lovers along the way and finds his true self.

If this is a romantic comedy then the man gets upset. Very upset. But we never really see this part, as it’s just alluded to years later to indicate why he’s so depressed. Another woman (you know, the one he should have been with all along from his hometown) swoops in the save the day and he finds his happily ever after with her.
If this is an academic scholarly journal, TED Talk, an article by the Huffington Post, BuzzFeed or even CNN, then the man tells his wife and her co-adulterer, “Hi!” He then places his briefcase neatly under the windowsill and goes proceeds downstairs to make them both coffee and then start on dinner for three of them… and the kids when they get home from school.

If this is the Old Testament around the time of Moses, Aaron and Joshua, then the man, at the sight of the sin in front of him, wears a agonizing grimace at the realization that his wife has committed not only a crime against him, but against God. He walks slowly out of his tent and proceeds to tell the elders what happened. At this point the two intrepid lovers are frantically dressing and trying to escape what they know is coming – but it’s too late. As they exit the tent they are surrounded by a group of about 15 men, all with large beards and serious eyes. Behind the men are hundreds of other observers. The 15 men ask for three witnesses. The husband steps up with his head down. “I am a witness.” Two Hebrews from the proximate tent step forward, an old couple with sadness on their faces. “We are witnesses,” they both say in low voices. As the disheveled adulterers look around for any hope of salvation, they realize there is no way out. They have been caught in the act. The oldest looking man of the 15 elders sighs deeply. “Outside the camp” he mutters reluctantly. The woman starts to scream, begging mercy – her husband’s eyes start to fill with tears. The other man turns toward the wilderness and starts to walk with his chest puffed and his gaze fixed. The screaming woman is dragged by cloak after him. After about a half mile walk the crowd encircles the two adulterers. The woman stops screaming and begins to quietly weep. The old man reminds the two why they are about to be stoned, reciting the Law. The crowd picks up rocks and begins to throw. One by one the flesh is pummeled, bruising and bleeding. Both of them are knocked to their knees within seconds. The man retains his posture, resolute on meeting his end with some shred of dignity. The woman begins to scream again, but all of a sudden her screams are cut short by a large stone that slams into her temple. Her body hits the ground and blood pours over the dry sand. It’s at this moment that the man, now bleeding profusely, realizes what is about to happen – he is receiving earthly justice, but cosmic justice is waiting for him on the other side of death. His heart jumps into his throat as another stone strikes the back of his head, taking away his vision. As his world quickly fades to black he begs and pleads God with every fiber left in his being to forgive him of his sin – but before his thoughts are completed brain is destroyed by a large stone that hits his forehead… thrown by the woman’s husband.

Let’s just take a moment for a deep breath.
OK, we can now proceed.

Adultery is an incredibly emotionally charged issue. Books, plays, movies, television shows and an innumerable number of songs have been dedicated to the subject. Indeed, most can think of some example of how adultery has affected them, even in some small way. This may be from the mere discomfort of watching a television show or movie where the character you were you were rooting for commits adultery, or by the profound betrayal of having a spouse or parent do so. Growing up in a pastor’s home, I was well aware of infidelity from a young age, often hearing about situations within and without the church that my father was involved as a counselor/go-between.  It was always something that made me incredibly uncomfortable – even insecure, regardless of the fact that my parents’ marriage was solid.

From where did this discomfort come? Is the stigma around adultery merely a social construct that should be either ignored or suppressed? After all, monogamy is not the norm, nor has it been throughout the history of the world. If you want a brief overview of the secular view on monogamy, go to youtube.com and search “TED-Talk: monogamy.” You will be presented with a series of talks from psychologists, sexologists and sociologists speaking to the fact that monogamy isn’t “natural” [i] that divorce rates in the US are actually dropping. But does this reflect an increase in faithful marriages or simply a fallen rate of marriage in general? throughout the world today or throughout history, and there may even be benefits to “straying” from one’s partner (again, I would have endnoted this article, but a mere 10 second online search will demonstrate a cornucopia of examples). The message from academia is clear: monogamy is an outdated and backwards idea – we were not meant to live monogamously and the practice is not mirrored in the animal world, and since we are by definition animals, it is not applicable to us either (note: this idea must assume evolutionary psychological principles).  The trend within academia is that the culture at large follows academic “research” and theory by about five years – at least by my somewhat subjective estimation from 10 years attending and working in institutions of higher learning. This means that the majority of the generation following millennials will probably assume the maxim that monogamy is an outdated and unrealistic idea – after all, if they’re parents couldn’t stick it out (generation X, Y), why should they assume that they will be able to? It has been noted

There are blatant and gross problems with the attacks on monogamy coming from the halls of institutions of higher learning and newsrooms. First is the problem of consistency. While hypocrisy does not negate the truth, there should be an added degree of skepticism for anyone or any movement that refuses to abide by the standards they advocate for everyone else. The fact of the matter is the majority of those advocating for a lapse in the moral standard of one partner for life generally have one partner for life (recommended reading: Charles A. Murray: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010). We have a situation where those who claim monogamy is a foolish standard and idea are typically monogamous – in other words, they scoff at the standard but prefer to live by it and enjoy its benefits. This typicality extends into many other social issues (abortion, same-sex relationships, transgenderism, drug use, etc.).

The other major problem with the attacks on monogamy stems from a misunderstanding of virtue and goodness. Those within a Judeo-Christian framework will typically understand the fallacy of assuming that something isn’t ideal because it isn’t normal. Indeed, lying and stealing are the norm in every part of the world, yet one would be hard pressed to find a country where there does not exist some type of justice system to sort out the problems caused by such vices. Genocide has been common throughout history, yet few in academic circles would advocate the perpetuation of such upon any people group. Normal does not equal good, in fact, it often (perhaps even usually) equals bad. Time and space restrict further extrapolation, but I could go into the statistical benefits of monogamy as the building block of society and how a two-parent (man and a woman) essentially contribute to the nurture and development of the human family. However, I would like to take a slightly different course.

While a solid case for monogamy could be made by detailing the dangers and outlining the imperfections of anything that’s not monogamy, I think a better course of action is to paint a positive picture of what true monogamy looks like, how beautiful it is and so argue to the point of why it should be maintained as the only standards for love. For those who have a good marriage (they’re spouse is their best friend, true confidant, number one support), trying to express the goodness of their state is almost like trying to explain being in a good relationship with God – only living the same experience can fully prove it. However, from the outside there are still obvious areas of note. For one, monogamy (in the abstract sense) is the only state that truly fulfills the need for companionship by fulfilling every emotional and physical need. It doesn’t always work this way, but the purpose of monogamy is to act as such.  Those who have good marriages will attest to this fact – I can attest to it. There is no person on this earth that I love to the degree that I love my wife. I try my best to demonstrate this to her in words and poetry, but the full expression of this feeling requires more than words, as it is a spiritual/metaphysical truth. I would take a bullet for my wife in a heartbeat – I would never have to think about it. This willingness to lay down one’s life for a spouse must be the epitome of human love, indeed as it extends beyond death; monogamous love requires that I also lay down my life on a daily basis, putting her needs, wants and even desires before my own, as the fulfillment of hers becomes the fulfillment of mine (we Christians see this as a direct picture of Christ and the Church, and I would argue this is best understood within a Christian context). However, this companionship also extends beyond sacrificial love: my wife is my best friend. Again, one would have to experience this to really appreciate it fully, but when I got married my time devoted to friends other than my wife changed – it didn’t mean that those relationships mean any less, indeed, they only grow more intimate and special with time, but my wife now has my primary attention and I’m happy to give it – I love to be with her.

Another area that aptly demonstrates the beauty of monogamous love is in sex. Unfortunately, this is probably the area of primary cultural distortion, at least in the Western World. Sex is worshiped in most of our societies as the height of human enjoyment and ecstasy regardless of who one is having sex with – it’s self-fulfillment that matters the most, the other person is merely a tool to get there. If one takes a step back and really considers this view of sex, it’s actually a bit disturbing. It essentially boils human kind down to their most basic urges and then says: “Enjoy yourself! Your sexual expression is the highest form of self-realization. ” I should say upfront that I have not experienced sex with anyone other than my wife – some (for example, the academics mentioned above) may scoff at this as being inherently ridiculous. Afterall, how can one know if one is “compatible” with another without making love (I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard this). I see the situation as being completely backwards. The one who commits themselves to one person for life never has to worry about the sexual compatibly of their spouse. Sure, it may be a bit awkward at first, but instead of a never-ending search for fulfillment the husband and wife build upon their sexual skill and technique with each-other and experience increasingly better intimacy in a setting that is completely secure. Indeed, there cannot be too many things as beautiful as the intimate love between a woman and a man who have committed their bodies to one another for the rest of their lives.

Finally, the area of family is exemplary of monogamous beauty. Again, statistical analysis of family trends in our society could demonstrate the importance of a father and mother figure within one home (and how this model contributes to the creation of productive, happy citizens), but instead I’d like to think on the micro stage. A look at one’s own life is all that’s necessary. While we know that circumstances don’t always equivocate to outcome, one need only consider one’s own circumstances to reflect on how they’ve contributed to the person they’ve become. For myself, having two committed parents who knew why they loved each other and followed through on their marital vows, I never had to wrestle with a host of issues that typically accompany the children of absentee fathers or mothers. This is not a boast. In a culture obsessed with “privilege,” the blessing of coming from a solid family foundation is frowned upon, but I thank God every day for the incredible benefit of having a not only a positive upbringing to reflect upon, but an exemplary model of a monogamous, loving marriage to aspire to. This is not to say that simply because I had a model nobody else can or even that I’m guaranteed success in my marriage because my parents were, but I don’t have to ask what a successful marriage is – neither does my wife. This gives us a figurative leg up in navigating the difficulties of marital life and living. Again, this is not to say in the least that someone who doesn’t come from ideal family circumstances won’t be able to model them in their own marriage (after all, many who are faithfully monogamous have as one of the chief goals is to do the opposite of what was modeled for them in their childhood).       

What is it then that distorts the beauty of monogamy and makes it seem outdated and a miserable state of existence? There are a number of factors at play. For one, the overall cultural tone, influenced by academic “experts,” paints monogamy as an oppressive institution (think “Handmaid’s Tale”). Children who are indoctrinated with these ideas from kindergarten to their graduate degree will no doubt be influenced by it. However, the more powerful source of distain for monogamy comes from the example of bad marriages – i.e., those who either failed at monogamy or made it seem so miserable that their children/anyone who looks upon their union never want to experience something similar and so forsake the practice altogether. Negative examples are profoundly powerful, and the most effective measure for the propagation of monogamy is simply to provide a positive example among the negative ones.

To return to be beginning narrative of this piece, what should be the course of action for the husband who finds his wife has been unfaithful? Well, this isn’t ancient Israel and there is no civil mandate to execute an adulterer. The fact remains that the wife in the situation has nullified the marriage covenant by violating it in the one area it can never be violated without the threat of dissolution. The husband is free to divorce – but he’s also free to forgive. Either decision may be castigated by the society at large because he chose to be monogamous in the first place. But let’s be honest – the whole situation could probably have been avoided if all parties involved simply valued and held sacred the beautiful institution of monogamous marriage between a woman and a man.

[i] http://time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...