Pastor Publicly Rebukes Drag Queen in Church Service

Antonio Rocquemore, Pastor of Power House International Ministries in Chicago, publicly rebuked a member of his church dressed in drag and then asked him to leave the service.  Not surprisingly the LGBTQ community is up in arms about this.

During the service the Pastor made the following statement just before calling out the young man in drag:

“if you stop believing, standing for something, you will fall for anything. And God can’t move the way he wants to because of the standard. He set a standard. Stand by him, even if it costs you friends because you’ll always be approved by heaven. I’m at a point in my life where I’d rather heaven be pleased with me than people speak to me…”

He then pointed to the young men and made the following statement to him:

“Can you step out into this aisle. Please. Can you leave my church and go put on man clothes. And don’t come dressed like that no more.  I hold a standard in here. Whatever you do on the outside is your business, but I will not let drag queens come in here. And if you’re gonna come in here you’re gonna come in here dressed like a man … If you’re a man, dress like a man. If you’re a woman, dress like a woman. I’m not going to allow it … you will not be wearing weaves and heels and fooling people up in here.”

You can view a partial cell phone video of what happened here.

After many false accusations against him regarding his public rebuke of the young man dressed in drag, Pastor Rocquemore, posted a video reply to all his critics clarifying why did he what he did and reemphasizing that he had no regrets about doing it.

In that clarification he makes the following facts known.

The young man in question was a member of his church.  Not some random stranger off the street.  The Pastor also makes clear the when coming to join the church as a member the young man told the Pastor he wanted to learn how to be a man.  The Pastor made clear to him the rules of the church including dress codes for both men and women for the services. He told him he could not dress as a woman while attending their services but what he did outside of the service was between him and God.

This Pastor even tried to love on this young man and gave him some of his own money. The young man showed up in women’s attire a few times after joining and the Pastor quietly pulled him aside and told him he needed to stop doing this.  The young man finally stopped wearing women’s clothing for a period of time.

Someone, outside or inside the church, encouraged this young man to defy the Pastor by wearing full drag again to a service.  This time after several quiet and private admonishments, the Pastor felt that he needed to take a public stand against what this young man was doing as he was challenging the Pastor’s position on men wearing women’s clothing.

You can watch Pastor Rocquemore’s full video reply here.

Now that we have the full truth about what happened in this church let’s look at what the Bible says about this.

The Bible Condemns Transvestism

In Deuteronomy 22:5 the Scriptures tell us:

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

So, we can see here that God’s unchanging moral law makes it crystal clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a man is never to wear that which pertains to woman or try to change his appearance in anyway to look like a woman.  The same goes for women – a woman is forbidden from changing her appearance to look like a man.

Deuteronomy 22:5 then is a clear and concise condemnation of transvestism, cross-dressers and transsexuals going through sex changes.

But the Bible Forbids Us from Eating Shellfish and it Condones Slavery!

Among the myriad of comments on line attacking this pastor we will see people dismissing passages like Deuteronomy 22:5 on the basis that the Bible condones slavery and it commands us not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics. If I had a dime for every person, some sadly even professing Christians, who throws this tired old argument at me I would be a rich man.  This is an argument that comes from a complete and utter ignorance of the Scriptures.

The goals of those who use this argument are two-fold.  The first goal is to say “Well you don’t follow all the laws of the Old Testament; therefore, you cannot use any Old Testament passages as a basis for morality.”  A second goal in this attack is to discredit the Bible as a source of moral truth on the basis that it allows for things that our society considers to be immoral like slavery (Leviticus 25:39-46) or forcing a woman to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28–29).

I have written several articles and even done a You Tube video refuting these false arguments which attempts to either dismiss all Old Testament laws or even the entire Bible on these grounds.  See these links below:

What is the distinction between the Moral, Ceremonial and Civil laws of the Old Testament?

What are the Moral Laws of God in the Old Testament?

Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible

Shellfish, Mixed Fabrics And Slavery – Oh My!

The short answer to these false arguments against Biblical authority and specifically the authority of the moral laws of the Old Testament is as follows.

God gave moral laws all throughout the Old and New Testaments.  He gave moral laws before Abraham or Moses were ever born and before he instituted the nation of Israel as a theocracy.  But when he gave the new nation of Israel it’s laws, he repeated moral laws he had given before and also gave new moral laws as well.  In addition to his moral laws, God also instituted civil laws for the nation of Israel which were mostly the punishment or restitution to made for the breaking of his moral laws.  He also instituted ceremonial laws which included laws about the priesthood, tithes, festivals, clothing, diet and the sacrificial system.

In the New Testament with the coming of Christ the ceremonial laws are put away because Christ is the fulfillment of God’s law.  He was the sacrifice that believers had always looked for.  The civil laws were also done away with because those were given for the physical nation of Israel and not the spiritual nation called the Church.  God would eventually dissolve what was left of Israel within a century of Christ’s death the Jews would be dispersed throughout the world.

So, the point is that Deuteronomy 22:5 is moral law that is still standing today.

But while Deuteronomy 22:5 could stand on its own the Apostle Paul repeats God’s condemnation of men appearing like or acting like women in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

“9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

But Jesus Did Not Condemn the Adulterous Woman

In the Gospel of John 8:3-11 we read the story of the woman taken in adultery. The scriptures tell us she was found “in the very act” (John 8:3).  The Pharisees wanting to see what Jesus would do threw her before him and reminded him of Moses’s law that commanded that she be stoned.  But Jesus said to them “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7).   And then when all her accusers left by one by one Jesus finally tells the woman “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:11).

This passage is used by many unbelievers and even professing Christians to say unless we are sinless, we as Christians have no business passing judgement on other’s sins.  But again, such an argument is based on an ignorance about the teachings of the Scriptures.

Some have pointed to the fact that the Pharisees had not brought the man whom she was caught in the act of adultery with to be stoned as well.   The Bible commanded that both the man and woman caught in the act of adultery must be killed (Deuteronomy 22:22).  So, they were not completely following the law by letting the man go and only taking the woman to be judged.

But aside from their half following of Moses law, Christ was trying to demonstrate two important principles to them.  He first was showing his authority as he had previously stated that “that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins” (Matthew 9:6).  Secondly, in exercising his authority to forgive sins he was demonstrating to them mercy and forgiveness as he commanded us all to have toward each other:

“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” – Matthew 6:14

Pastor Rocquemore demonstrated Christ’s example perfectly toward this young man. He tried to quietly address the issue with this young man.  He forgave him on multiple occasions but in the end the young man became more defiant than ever and the Pastor had to take action.  People often will cite the first part of the story of the woman taken in adultery but they miss Christ’s final words to that woman “go, and sin no more”.  This was exactly what this Pastor did when he told that young man “go put on man clothes. And don’t come dressed like that no more”.

But Doesn’t the Bible Tell Us Not to Judge?

There are a lot of comments by those detractors of what this Pastor did stating that what he did was a violation of God’s prohibition on Christians judging other Christians.

Jesus said “Judge not, that ye be not judged” in Matthew 7:1, but John 7:24 Jesus also said “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.  The Apostle Paul said “Let us not therefore judge one another any more …” in Romans 14:13 but he also said in 1 Corinthians 5:12 “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?”.

So, we can clearly see that both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul are condemning one type of judging but commanding another type of judging.  What they are condemning is hypocritical judging or engaging in judgement over those whom we have no authority to do so.

In 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 we read of a serious situation happening in the Church of Corinth:

“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.”

So, at the Corinthian church a man had his father’s wife (his step mother) and the church was proud of this! This is no different than many so-called churches today that are “proud” of their gay members, transsexual or transvestite members. But unlike so many false Christian churches today the Apostle Paul did not tell them they were right in not judging this couple living in open immorality, but instead he called on them to JUDGE this couple as he had already done before he arrived.

In 1 Corinthians 5:3-7 Paul gives the church the remedy for dealing with those who try to enter the assembly whilst being in open sin against God:

“3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

Paul literally commands that the Church gather together as an assembly and publicly hand this person living in open immorality over to Satan.  He commands them to “purge” such people from the assembly of believers.

The Apostle Paul then goes on to clarify for them those whom they are to judge as a church and those who they cannot judge as a church in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:

“9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.  11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

Paul makes it clear that that righteous judgement has to do with those whose claim to be brothers in Christ but are proudly living in some type of sin. We are to having nothing to do with such wicked professing believers and we are to put away such people from the assembly of God.

So, we can see based upon the clear teaching of the Scriptures that what Pastor Rocquemore did in this instance was righteous judgment according to the Word of God.

But Doesn’t the Bible say “Come as you are”

Another common argument in the comments condemning Pastor Rocquemore’s actions toward the man dressed in drag at his church is that his actions violated the Biblical principle that we can come to God as sinners.  In other words, we can come to God as we are.

The Bible tells us in Romans 5:8 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”.  It also tells us in Revelation 22:17 “Come! Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely”.

The problem with this argument is that it mixes apples and oranges.  The “apple” in this case is coming to God and taking freely of the water of life by calling on Christ for salvation.  The “orange” in this case is fellowship within the assembled church.

God absolutely takes us as we are, wicked sinners.  But we cannot remain in this state.  If we do remain in sin then we prove we never truly accepted the salvation he so freely offers us.

The Scriptures tell us this:

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” – Romans 6:1-2

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” – 2 Corinthians 5:17

It is absolutely Biblically true that we can come to God as we are – wicked sinners.  In fact, there is no other way we could come as we cannot cleanse our own sin, only Christ’s shed blood on the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit within us can do this.  But if we truly believe, then our minds will be renewed.  We come as we are but we cannot and will not remain the same if we are truly in Christ.

While God invites all to come as they are for salvation, he only invites those who are not as they were, those who are new creatures in Christ, into to the assembled church.

This Crisis is the Result of the Seeker-Sensitive Church Movement

The fact that it is even debatable as to what this Pastor did in openly rebuking and expelling this man from his church is a direct testament to the massive damage that has been done to many churches by the seeker-sensitive church movement.

The false philosophy of the seeker-sensitive church takes God’s command to the Church to preach the Gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19 & Mark 16:15) and uses it to cancel out all other commands given to the Church.

God did more than just command the Church to spread the Gospel.  In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 God commanded that the holiness of the church assembly be kept above all other concerns and that those who would live in sinful lifestyles while trying to be part of the assembly be expelled from the assembly.  In Ephesians 4:11-15 we read that a core purpose of the church is “the perfecting of the saints” which means helping Christians to learn the doctrines of the faith and apply these doctrines to their lives. And in 2 Timothy 4:1-5 God commands that the Church is to “Preach the word” and “reprove, rebuke, exhort” those in assembly.

The modern seeker-sensitive churches cast aside all these other commands given to the church in order to make their churches more appealing to the outside world and unbelievers in their midst.  They refuse to preach against sin, to rebuke those who sin in their assembly and to keep the church only for those who are new creatures in Christ.

The Bible tells us:

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” – James 4:4

These seeker-sensitive churches value friendship with the world and being loved by the world more than faithfulness to God’s commands to keep the holiness of his Church.  As a result, these compromising churches find themselves filled with people who are not new creatures in Christ.

As Christian Churches we may disagree on various doctrines.  But standing for the holiness of the church cannot be one of them.  We must stand together on this.

A War on Christianity Has Begun

As Christians we must realize that within our culture a war is being made on Christianity.  Just a few days ago the following news was reported in an article on CBNNews.com entitled “Incoming Democratic Congress Has Hobby Lobby in Their Sights, Hoping to Force Abortion Funding“:

“Having just won back control of the House in this year’s midterm elections, Democrats now have their sights set on an issue near and dear to people of faith: the sanctity of life.

As they prepare to take over the chamber, 50 Democrats have agreed to co-sponsor legislation that would effectively cripple the 25-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That brings the total number of Democratic House legislators supporting the bill to 172.

According to The Washington Examiner, H.R. 3222 would make it so LGBTQ rights and other progressive causes would take precedence over religious freedoms.

In addition, supporters say the bill would reverse the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases.”

The enemies of true Christianity are trying to force church ministries and Christian owned businesses to provide abortion services as part of their health insurance for their employees.  Homosexuals purposefully go into Christian bakeries, florists and wedding photographers to set them up for lawsuits. And now we see transvestites forcing their perverted actions and beliefs on local churches.  I have no doubt that if not in this case that in the future we will see homosexuals suing churches to force them to allow them to be members.

Those who do this believe they fight for civil rights and social justice.  But God grants no such right to live in these wicked ways or do these wicked things.  Thus, they stand in opposition against God and his Word.  Many falsely compare the fight for equal treatment for those of different races in the 1960’s with the fight now for LGBTQ rights.  But the difference is that one was based on race and the other is based on one’s actions.  These two things are as different as night and day. Those who falsely believe they will force by the power of civil law full acceptance of the LGBTQ community on  Bible believing Christians are in for a very rude awakening.

We know what the Scripture tell us when civil authorities pass laws which contradict God’s laws:

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:29

Christians have been dying for centuries for their belief and adherence to the Word of God and now will be no different than then.  When the time comes, the true believers in Christ will be willing to lose their businesses and even in their lives for the cause of following the Word of God.   But as Churches and other Christian organizations continue to be taken to court many Christians and non-Christian alike in America will grow tired of this. And the fight for the soul of our nation may boil to a point we have not seen since the Civil War.

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

Benjamin Franklin once famously stated “That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” And he was right in saying this. This principle was deeply interwoven into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all early American laws. It was based in English common law and before that Roman laws and before that Biblical law.

The MeToo Movement’s Assault on Justice

It is ironic that a movement that purports to fight for justice for women who have been sexually assaulted by men is itself guilty of an even more heinous assault on a bedrock principle of American, Western and Biblical justice.

On November 21st 2017, the Feminist Columnist Emily Lindin wrote the following statements on her twitter account:

“Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”

“First, false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It’s a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population).”

“Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

And more recently a Christian woman emailed me yesterday and made the following statement:

“Your article about Kavanaugh really bothered me, and I have no doubt that a lot of victims of molestation will be highly offended.

Now I understand that false allegations do happen, and I understand that usually we have innocent until proven guilty rule. But I think with rape and molestation, it should be a false positive system, because we need to protect alleged victims, especially if they’re children, protected from the accused until there is proof that the allegations aren’t true. If victims are not believed it can have dire and tragic consequences. It does unthinkable harm to genuine rape/molestation victims, and it just makes it harder for victims to be believed. There are two sides to this. There is no proof that Kavanaugh is innocent.

I will flat-out say that I believe the women speaking against Kavanaugh. Also, there can’t always be proof that something happened because sexual predators are very smart in hiding their crimes.”

Do you see what these women are saying? The are literally reversing what Benjamin Franklin said and are basically saying this:

“Better 100 Innocent Men Should Suffer Than One Sexual Assaulter or Rapist Should Escape”

Now the women who take this position comfort themselves with some statistics on false reporting of rape and sexual assault. We will discuss this next.

Are Only 2 Percent of Rape Accusations False?

A common statement you will see being floated around many sites that want to proclaim all men accused of rape as guilty until proven innocent are statements like this:

“Only 2 percent of rape accusations are false according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center”

First, we must understand the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) is not perfect in its information. It is an agenda driven organization so its numbers could be skewed to fit that agenda. But let’s take look at the NSVRC website to see the complete statement they made on this subject of false rape claims:

“The prevalence of false reporting is low between 2% and 10%. For example, a study of eight U.S. communities, which included 2,059 cases of sexual assault, found a 7.1% rate of false reports (i). A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston found a 5.9% rate of false reports (h). Researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1% rate of false reports (g).”

So we can see that the 2 percent number that all the MeToo folks give us for false rape claims is actually on the low end of the estimate.  It could actually be as high as 10 percent.

Crying “Rape”!

Cathy Young wrote an article for Slate.com back in 2014 entitled “Crying Rape”. In it she made some interesting observations what she called the “serious problem” of false accusations of rape against men. Here are some excerpts from that article:

“How frequent are false accusations? A commonly cited estimate, which may have originated with feminist author Susan Brownmiller in the 1970s, is that they account for only about 2 percent of rape reports. After the Oberst fiasco, feminist blogger Rebecca Watson posted a video asserting that, statistically, you will be wrong two out of 100 times if you presume a rape accusation to be true and 98 out of 100 times if you presume it to be false.

In fact, as Emily Bazelon and Rachael Larimore wrote in Slate five years ago, official data on what law enforcement terms “unfounded” rape reports (that is, ones in which the police determine that no crime occurred) yield conflicting numbers, depending on local policies and procedures—averaging 8 percent to 10 percent of all reported rapes.


In challenging “the myth of the lying woman,” feminists have been creating their own counter-myth: that of the woman who never lies.

Our focus on getting justice for women who are sexually assaulted is necessary and right. We are still far from the day when every woman who makes a rape accusation gets a proper police investigation and a fair hearing. But seeking justice for female victims should make us more sensitive, not less, to justice for unfairly accused men. In practical terms, that means finding ways to show support for victims of sexual violence without equating accusation and guilt, and recognizing that the wrongly accused are real victims too. It means not assuming that only a conviction is a fair outcome for an alleged sex crime. It means, finally, rejecting laws and policies rooted in the assumption that wrongful accusations are so vanishingly rare they needn’t be a cause for concern. To put it simply, we need to stop presuming guilt.”

Even NSVRC recognizes that incidents of false rape claims could be as high as 10 percent. The higher number of 10 percent is backed up by other groups outside the NSVRC  as well.

Putting a Human Face on the Victims of False Rape Claims

In 2002, Brian Banks was a football star at the age of 17 destined for college football was accused of rape and kidnapping after what he said was consensual sexual encounter with Wanetta Gibson. And the encounter actually left no trace DNA on Gibson’s clothing. Brian Bank’s attorneys told him he was facing 41 years in prison if the jury believed her so he plead no-contest to get a reduced sentence of 6 years. Wanetta Gibson sued Long Beach Schools and received a 1.5-million-dollar settlement for her supposed rape. After Banks served a little over 5 years in prison and was released Gibson met him and later prosecutors and admitted she lied. He sued her and won in June of 2013.

In 2003, James Grissom was convicted of the raping Sara Ylen. She had picked him out of a page of mug shots presented to her by the police. Later she would admit she had been looking at pictures of men from sex offender registries before seeing his mugshot. After serving almost 10 years of a 15 to 35-year sentence, James Grissom was released from prison after the District Attorney in St. Clair County Michigan asked the court to vacate his conviction and dismiss all charges. It turned out that Sara Ylen would later go on to make many more false rape claims. In December 2013, Sara Ylen was sentenced to serve 5 to 10 years in prison for making false rape accusation claims against two men.

In 2005, William McCaffrey was accused by Biurny Peguero of raping her. With no DNA evidence a Manhattan jury convicted the man of rape. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. After he had served 2 years of his 20 year sentence a DNA test showed the bite mark on the woman’s arm did not even come from a man – it came from a woman. She would later admit to a Priest and the Prosecutors that she had lied about the whole event. He was exonerated and released by a judge in 2009.

In 2006, three white college students on the Duke Lacrosse team were accused of raping a black stripper they hired for a party. It would later turn out that an ambitious DA who was using this case to help with his re-election bid violated many codes of legal ethics and in the end based his entire case on false evidence. The three young men were exonerated at trial.

In 2009, an 18-year-old Black student named Danmell Ndonye accused 5 fellow students of gang raping her in a dormitory bathroom at Hofstra University. This case quickly fell apart when within 72 hours of her claim when police obtained cell phone videos from someone in the bathroom filming the whole event. Slate writer Emily Bazelon in her article “Smeary Lines” wrote regarding this case that “The weird lesson for men who have group sex in bathrooms: Film it on your cell phone”.

In 2013, Joanie Faircloth made a false claim that the singer Connor Oberst had raped her a decade earlier when she was a 16-year-old teen. A year later she issued a public statement recanting and saying she made it up to get attention.

In 2016, Nikki Yovino accused two college football players of raping her. She later admitted she made the story up. She was sentenced in August of 2018 to 1 year in prison for making false rape allegations.

What a MeToo America Would Look Like

Socialists and Liberals often don’t fully think through the consequences of their actions.

Imagine if we passed the following as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“The presumption of innocence is hereby suspended for men accused of sexually related crimes against women. All women are to be presumed as credible and truthful in their accusations against men for sexually related crimes. Men are to be presumed guilty of any sexually related crime they are accused of by a woman and bear the burden of proving themselves innocent in such cases. Even if a woman’s claims are proven to be false or even if she admits they are false at some future point she may not be prosecuted in civil or criminal courts for this action. Men accused of sexually related crimes may be immediately terminated from by their employers with no recourse to sue for wrongful discharge in these cases.”

A person with an ounce of common sense and awareness of human nature knows if you give any group of people a blank check to do a certain thing – that thing will be abused. Such an amendment which follows the proposed ideals of the MeToo movement would cause the 2 to 10 percent incidents of false rape and sexual assault allegations to sky rocket.

Imagine how many women would use this as black mail to get any position they wanted at a company? “If you don’t give me the promotion I will say you raped me or sexually assaulted me”. If a man goes to break up with woman she could say “I will say you raped me if you leave me”. When women get divorced they cold just blackmail their soon to be ex-husbands with false rape charges so they could take all their money and get full custody of the children. When women have consensual sex with men and are ashamed of their choices they can just re-frame it as rape. Just imagine the wicked abuses that could take place in such a system.

Better 100 Rapists Should Escape Than One Innocent Man Should Suffer

This brings us to the conclusion of this matter. On one side we have MeToo advocates arguing that men have been sexually assaulting women since the beginning of recorded history and now its time for men and the patriarchy to pay for its past and continuing abuses of women.

But you know what else has been occurring since the beginning of the human history? Murder, theft and all other types of non-sexual abuses of men against men, women against women and men against women. Human beings are and always have been sinful and wicked since the Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden.

The question is how we deal with the wrongs that people commit against one another. Should we throw out innocent until proven guilty for sexual assault crimes? The answer from the Bible is a resounding NO!

The Bible shows us that God is far more concerned with the innocent being falsely punished than the wicked escaping justice:
“15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
Deuteronomy 19:15-20 (KJV)

It would be absolutely Biblical to say that in God’s eyes it would be better that 100 rapists should escape justice than one innocent man should suffer by a false or uncorroborated accusation.

Look at what God says should be done to the one who brings a false accusation? They should get the same sentence that the one they falsely accused would have received.

There are many MeToo and other women’s rights advocates who would like to see our legal system get rid of prosecution or civil lawsuits for false rape claims by women. They say such mechanisms discourage women from coming forward with real rape claims. But as I have shown here from the Bible – our punishments for false rape claims don’t go far enough! Women who make false rape claims get sentenced to a tiny fraction of the time that the men they accused of rape would have received if they had been found guilty. We should follow God’s law in this and give the same sentence to women who falsely accuse men of rape as what the men would receive if they were convicted of rape.

What If It Were Your Father, Your Husband, Your Brother, Your Son?

Judge Brett Kavanagh, now thanks to God Justice Brett Kavanagh, made a statement that I believe will be long remembered in American history. He made this statement at the close of his opening remarks on September 27 while defending himself against the false rape allegations of Dr. Christine Blasely Ford.

“We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago, is enough to destroy a person’s life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system in our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son.”

While others had previously made this contention against the MeToo movement’s assault on due process and the presumption of innocence – this was different. This was a national stage. It is estimated that nearly 20 million Americans watched this hearing and heard Brett Kavanagh’s words. To those in the MeToo movement it probably did little to move them to rethink their assault on due process and the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

But what it did do is awaken millions of other Americans to the dangers that the MeToo movement poses to justice and due process in America. And the tired argument of Democrats and MeToo advocates that “this was not a court of law but just a job interview” did not hold water with millions of Americans who were infuriated at what happened to Brett Kavanaugh.

You can still destroy a man’s life with unproven accusations without ever trying him in a court of law or sending him to prison. One of the writers for CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”, Ariel Dumas, made this statement on twitter before making her account private after a huge backlash:

“Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life”

In the last week, millions of Americans woke up to the reality that their fathers, their husbands, their brothers and their sons could have their lives ruined in the same way that Ariel Dumas was so happy about. Their careers and livelihoods could be destroyed by the MeToo movement and some could lose their freedom and be imprisoned for many years if the MeToo movement is successful in its assault on the American justice system, men and the patriarchy.

In article for Slate.com entitled “The Kavanaugh Hearings Have Women Fired Up … to Vote Republican” Ruth Graham writes:

the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.

Atlantic reporter Emma Green talked with about a dozen female conservative leaders across the country for a story this week that puts flesh on the Marist poll’s finding: that the Kavanaugh hearings have electrified conservative women too. “I’ve got women in my church who were not politically active at all who were incensed with this,” the chairwoman of the West Virginia Republican Party told Green. The Indiana state director for the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, Jodi Smith, told Green that “people in Indiana are angry.” In her view, the hearings are “one of the best things that could happen to us” as she looks forward to a hotly contested Senate election in the state in November.”

I can say that all but two liberal women amongst my extended relatives and friends thought the way Brett Kavanaugh was treated was truly “a national disgrace” as he stated in his hearing. And his line about would this be the standard that you would want your “your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son” judged by rings true for millions of women across the country.

A Final Word to Women Who Have Been Victims of Sexual Assault

I previously revealed here that my mother was the victim of rape by her own grandfather. I have also known other women personally in my life that were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. I myself was molested by a 17-year-old boy at a church I attended when I was 14. But I would never compare what happened to me to what happened to my mother. It still gives me chills when I think of her account of what happened and the effect that she told me it had her relationship with my father years after it happened.

When I and millions of other Americans stand up for the rule of law, due process and the presumption of innocence this does not mean we care nothing for the true victims of sexual assault. But we cannot do evil that good may result. We cannot tear down the justice system, and destroy men’s lives in order to get justice for female victims of sexual assault.

Rape and other forms of sexual assault have existed as long as murder, theft and all other types of crimes have existed. We will no more eliminate rape and sexual assault than we will any of these other crimes. All we can do is try to protect ourselves against these crimes and when they do occur report them right away to the proper authorities with as much evidence as we can muster.

As Christians we know that a crucial way to help protect women from sexual assault or rape is to follow the rules that most societies had for their women for thousands of years. Women were not left alone with men who were not their male relatives. Now I know that some will immediately say that sometimes relatives molest their own. I could not agree more based on what happened to my mother on the part of her own grandfather.

But we must do our best to take all the precautions we can. We can’t say just because we can’t stop all rape and sexual assault that we should not take all the precautions we can. I lock my doors at night but that does not mean someone could not find another way into my home by breaking a window.

Finally, if you are a woman like my mother who was raped I am going to give you a piece of advice my mother had to learn. You have two choices. You can choose to allow the sexual assault or rape you experienced to distort your view of men and sex and cause you to want to tear down the entire justice system to get your revenge on men or the patriarchy. Or you can take a different path. You can choose to give your pain and hurt to Christ. You can choose to have Christ restore in you a healthy view of men, sex and marriage and a respect for the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” – 1 John 5:4

You can either live your life as a victim or as victor, the choice is yours.

Sometimes Women DO Sit Around Making These Things Up

According to Senator Mazie Hirono during her interview on “MSNBC Live” yesterday, the new standard of justice when it comes to sex crimes in America is that “Women do not sit around making these things up”.  She made this statement regarding the sexual assault accusations of Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Christine Blasey Ford’s Story

So here is Christine Blasey Ford’s story in a nutshell.

A woman claims that a man attempted to rape her 36 years ago.  She claimed to have repressed the memory and only recovered it during a 2012 couples’ therapy session with her husband whom she married in 2002.  Brett Kavanaugh’s name was never mentioned in the therapy session notes.

She has offered no physical evidence of the attempted rape.

She does not remember where the house was.

She does not remember what day or month it was in.

She said she received medical treatment but does not remember where or when.

Every person she has put forward as witness denies any knowledge of such an event.

There is No Evidence of a Crime According to American or Biblical Law

Whether this attack happened 36 years ago, or 36 weeks ago there is no evidence according to our legal system that a crime ever took place.  An accusation by the alleged victim of a crime is not evidence. There must be physical evidence, circumstantial evidence or witnesses to a crime to convict someone of a crime.

One of our American founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, stated this about how our justice system should work:

“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906)

The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is not just the bedrock of American justice, but it was also the concept of Biblical justice as well. The Bible required multiple witnesses to establish the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime in Israel:

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

Deuteronomy 19:15 (KJV)

In other words – you can’t accuse someone of a crime, including assault, simply based on your own witness of the event.  Where are the other witnesses, where is the physical evidence?

Yet many in our court of public opinion have already assassinated the character of Brett M. Kavanaugh based on these allegations by Ford.

Sometimes Women DO sit around making these things up

Contrary to the assertions of Senator Mazie Hirono, sometimes women do sit around making these things up for a variety of reasons.   It can be for reasons of pride, fame, spite, revenge or other political motivations. In the Bible we find a famous story of a woman “making these things up”:

“11 One day he went into the house to attend to his duties, and none of the household servants was inside. 12 She caught him by his cloak and said, “Come to bed with me!” But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.  13 When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the house, 14 she called her household servants. “Look,” she said to them, “this Hebrew has been brought to us to make sport of us! He came in here to sleep with me, but I screamed. 15 When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house.”

Genesis 39:11-15 (KJV)

Women making up claims of sexual assault is as old as men committing sexual assault itself.  Both of these sins have occurred throughout history and our legal systems must recognize the very real possibility of both of these things occurring.

A lot of Ford’s defenders will say “Well she talked about him doing this way back in 2012 in a therapy session long before he became a nominee and there is documented proof of her making this claim to a therapist.  Why would she make up the lie before ever knowing who would be President in four years or that he would nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court?”

Well first and foremost there is no documented proof of her making a claim that Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her.  She never gave the therapist any names.  Her husband alleges she told him afterwards that it was Brett Kavanaugh but spouses lie for each other so he is not a reliable witness.

So, this leaves us with two other likely possibilities of what actually happened.  Ford could have been sexually assaulted by someone other than Brett Kavanaugh and she may not even remember who it was.  But she chose to put Kavanaugh’s name in as her attacker when she saw him announced as Trump’s nominee because she wanted to stop him from being nominated.

An even worse scenario would be and could be that she made the entire event up in therapy as an excuse to deal with problems in her own marriage and then filled in Brett Kavanaugh’s name as the attacker as an added bonus. And of course, her loving husband supports her in her lies.  This is a very real possibility as well.

But what about the second or third woman?

A second woman, Deborah Ramirez, has claimed that Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself in her face when he was Yale University. So, if we have two women accusing him then both these claims must true right? That is the sad standard for many in our society.  If you can’t take the man down with one flawed accuser, just throw in another for good measure.

This second woman even admitted to not being sure it was Brett Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her until after a democratic lawyer helped coach her and convince her that it was.

Then of course we have the trashy lawyer Michael Avenatti claiming he has yet another woman making claims against Brett Kavanaugh.

Conclusion

Senator Mazie Hirono was partially right in some advice she gave to men the other night when she stated:

“I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

The only part of her advice that was wrong was when she said “shut up”.  I would simply change this part of her statement and give this advice to all men including Brett Kavanaugh in the face of the rampant misandry going on in American culture today:

“I just want to say to the men in this country: Speak up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

The Bible gives us as men this admonition:

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”

1 Corinthians 16:13

I was so pleased to see Brett Kavanaugh make the forceful defense he did in his interview with Martha MacCallum from Fox News.  I was pleased to see him speak up and step up to the corrupt political forces that would see him step down.

I pray that God will give the Republican senators the wisdom to see that this is truly a smear campaign against a good man and a good judge and I hope they will have the courage to help him win this nomination.

Exposing the Myth That White Christian America Is Dying

Is White Christianity in America dying?  That is what many in our American media would have us to believe.

In July of 2016, Robert P. Jones released his book “The End of White Christian America”. George Soros’s Open Society Foundation hosted one of the book’s first discussion groups and book signing events a couple weeks after it came out.

Robert Jones is also the founder and CEO of The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).  PRRI claims to be a nonpartisan polling organization but it is anything but that. Their who’s who list of globalists and left wing supporters like George Soros should be a huge red flag for anyone reading their polls.

What you will discover when you look at PRRI’s polling and commentary is that they are trying to persuade conservative Christians to give up their conservative positions on social issues like opposition to fluid gender roles, transgenderism, homosexuality and abortion just to name a few areas.  In the area of immigration, they greatly push globalism and multiculturalism and their enemies are populists or nationalists whether they be Christian or non-Christian.

Pretty much all liberal Christian groups and publications use PRRI’s polling because it supports both the secular and Christian liberal agenda’s which are closely aligned.

If you want to get polling from a truly independent source, I would recommend Pew Research who strictly forbids all of their executives and poll commentators from any involvement in the political arena.  They truly seek to do objective polling and present objective commentary without trying to sway public opinion one way or the other.

A great summary of Robert Jones’s positions is found in a Washington Post interview by John Sides entitled “Why Christian American is dying”.

The False “Lower Religious Affiliation by Age” Argument

In the beginning of his interview Mr. Jones makes the argument that lower numbers of Whites Christians in the younger ages is an indicator of the coming death of White Christianity in America. He references a chart from his book showing this when he states:

“Like an archaeological excavation, the chart sorts Americans by religious affiliation and race, stratified by age. It shows the decline of white Christians among each successive generation.

Today, young adults ages 18 to 29 are less than half as likely to be white Christians as seniors age 65 and older. Nearly 7 in 10 American seniors (67 percent) are white Christians, compared to fewer than 3 in 10 (29 percent) young adults.” [1]

There are two problems with Jones’s argument on this point.  The first problem is that if you dig into his definition here he is talking about church attendance. There are many people who are true believing Christians that for various reasons have not attended Church in many years. The second problem and really the larger problem is his glaring omission of a fact he knows well.

This difference between age groups and church attendance (not faith) has been around since the 1970s.  This is NOT something new.  In an article from Pew Research entitled “Why do levels of religious observance vary by age and country?” they make the following observation about age and church attendance:

“Looking at four age groups (rather than two) reveals even more clearly that religious service attendance and age have not always correlated perfectly in the United States. From the early 1940s through the 1960s, people in their 40s and 50s reported attending at least as frequently as those over 60. And adults in their 30s saw a spike in attendance in the late 1950s, briefly matching or exceeding the other groups. By the mid-1970s, the age groups had split into the pattern seen today: Older adults are more religiously committed than younger adults.” [2]

So, the pattern of younger people not attending church and then as they get older attending church has been the pattern for the last half century.  As people get married, have children and grow older they return with their families to church.   Nothing new here and certainly not evidence for the demise of White Christianity in America.

I always find it humorous when I am watching liberal TV news and read liberal articles and they point to the liberal views of young people as an indicator of where elections and the culture is heading.  What they neglect to tell their viewers and readers is that many polls and studies show that as people age they generally get more conservative.  That is why there is always consistently a larger percentage of conservatives among middle age and older people than younger.

Before I present and answer more of Mr. Jones’s supposed evidence for the death of White Christianity in America we need to define the major categories of Christianity in America.

Christian Sectarianism is as American as Apple Pie

In a Washington Examiner article entitled “Is the end of white Christian America a good thing?” Michael Barone wrote:

Sectarianism is as American as apple pie. We have not only had black churches, we have had separate Northern and Southern churches. The American Catholic Church, run by Irish-Americans for most of its history, has had identifiable Italian and Polish parishes. It’s nice if people of different ethnic or racial heritage decide to participate in a congregation together. But it doesn’t seem likely to be a major driver of increased church membership.” [3]

I would go a step further and say sectarianism is not just the norm for America, but it has always been the norm for Christianity throughout the world.  During the early church bishops ruled over individual churches.  Eventually metropolitan bishops consolidated power over all the local bishops and churches in a given city area.  There are letters during this early church period of bishops arguing with one another on various doctrines and applications of the Scriptures.  The point is that sectarianism was the norm of the early church.

After the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 A.D. he not only sought to reunite the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, but he also helped the Christian Bishops at Rome to consolidate religious power over all the Christian churches in the empire.  Rome’s hold on power over the Christian churches would only last until 1054 A.D. when the Eastern Byzantine Christians split from Rome to form what would later be known as the Orthodox Church.  Less than 500 years after that split, in 1517, the Catholic Church of Rome would experience another great division which started with a German Catholic Monk named Martin Luther. This division would become known as the Protestant reformation.

The Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible.  Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.

Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation but not the only guide for faith and practice. Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that formed from them believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.

Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.  However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.

The Differences between Evangelical, Mainline and Black Protestants

Pew Research when compiling its 2014 “Religious Landscape Study” broke up Protestants into three main groups based on a combination of culture and beliefs.  These three groups were Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black.  When PRRI did it’s study they purposefully rejected these three groupings and instead only had Evangelical and Mainline.  It added all black churches into the Evangelical category. Then it divided evangelicals back out into three categories of “White evangelical, White mainline and Black Protestant”.  Yes, it was definitely some fuzzy math.

This recategorization is alluded to in the ABC News Blog “FiveThirtyEight.com”.  In an article entitled “How Trump And Race Are Splitting Evangelicals” Perry Bacon Jr. and Amelia Thomson-Deveaux wrote:

“Two factors appear to be driving this divide. First, the number of white evangelicals is in decline in America at the same time that the evangelical population is becoming more racially diverse. According to 2016 data from the Public Religion Research Institute, about 64 percent of evangelicals are non-Hispanic white, compared to about 68 percent in 2006. [you have to click the x here to see the note]

PRRI defines “evangelicals” as respondents who identify as Protestant and evangelical or born-again. Other pollsters — in particular, the Pew Religious Landscape Survey, though not all Pew surveys — define “evangelical” by denomination and exclude some historically black denominations, which results in a higher share of white evangelicals. The 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Survey, for example, suggested that about 75 of evangelicals are white, a higher number than PRRI’s finding, but still a drop from 81 percent in 2007.” [4]

Robert Jones has attempted to sell a narrative for some time that Black Protestant and Evangelical churches are the same group of Protestants.  That has NEVER historically been the case as I will show later in this article.  In an article he wrote for the Atlantic in 2014 entitled “White Christmas, Black Christmas” Jones states:

“Black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants are the two groups with the highest church-attendance rates in the country. While less than four in 10 (38 percent) Americans overall report attending religious services weekly or more often, 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 55 percent of black Protestants attend church at least weekly. White evangelical Protestants and black Protestants also share a particularly literal approach to the Bible. Among the general public, approximately one-third (35 percent) believe the Bible is the literal word of God, but about six in 10 white evangelical Protestants (61 percent) and black Protestants (57 percent) hold a literal view of the Bible. These two groups also share a belief in a personal God, an emphasis on individual salvation, and religious architecture that emphasizes the centrality of the pulpit over the altar.” [5]

Jones is right that Black Protestants and White Evangelicals have much in common.  White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning the mainline Protestants who reject the authority of the Bible or the literal interpretation of it.  White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning mainline Protestant churches who allow homosexual members and even homosexual clergy.

However there still is a core and fundamental divide between Black Protestants and White Evangelicals and that divide is and has always been throughout American history what we call today social justice, which is simply another name for socialism.

White Evangelical Opposition to Socialism and Social Justice

As I have previously said, Robert Jones has tried to paint a false narrative that Black Protestants and White evangelicals are the same Protestant group. But the history of the evangelical movement proves this narrative to be false.

When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was founded in 1942 there were no African American denominations or churches that were a part of it.  It was completely comprised of churches that were predominantly white and held to a literal view of the Bible.

There was probably no better representation of a 20th century White Evangelicalism than Billy Graham who passed away earlier this year at the age of 99. Unfortunately, the version of Billy Graham that we saw in his last couple decades bore little resemblance to the man he once was.  If you were to go to BillyGraham.org today and look up “racism” in search of his quotes and sermons you will find the “edited for modern viewers” presentation of Billy Graham.  You will find stories of how he befriended Martin Luther King and even paid to bail him out of jail.  You will find him calling racism evil and wicked.  You will hear how he integrated his rallies.

But after his death there were several publications that reminded us (albeit in a negative and condescending way) that the sweet and non-political Billy Graham most people had come to know today was not the Billy Graham of earlier years.

A CNN article entitled “Where Billy Graham ‘missed the mark’” recounts this story about Billy Graham:

“…Graham personally lobbied President Dwight D. Eisenhower to ignore the racial crisis in the South, that he told a white audience in Charlotte in 1958 that demonic hordes were the real source behind the country’s racial problems, and that he wrote a 1960 article for U.S. News and World Report tacitly defending Southern resistance to integration.

The Bible also recognizes that each individual has the right to choose his own friendships and social relationships,” Graham wrote. “I am convinced that forced integration will never work. You cannot make two races love each other and accept each other at the point of bayonets.” [6]

Matthew Avery Sutton, wrote the following in an article for the Guardian entitled “Billy Graham was on the wrong side of history”:

“For Graham, the Bible had a clear message for Christians living in what he believed were humans’ last days on earth. Individuals alone can achieve salvation; governments cannot. Conversions change behaviors; federal policies do not…

In the late 1950s, Graham integrated his revivals and seemed to support the burgeoning civil rights movement. This is the Graham most Americans remember… Within days of the publication of King’s famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Graham told reporters that the Baptist minister should “put the brakes on a little bit”.

He criticized civil rights activists for focusing on changing laws rather than hearts…

Graham praised the wisdom of young people who rejected the federal government as a tool for rectifying injustices.

These young people don’t put much stock in the old slogans of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society,” he said. “They believe that utopia will arrive only when Jesus returns. Thus these young people are on sound Biblical ground.

For six decades, Graham taught Americans that the federal government could not be an instrument of God to bring about justice, not on race matters and not on other significant issues…

Graham came of age during Franklin Roosevelt’s vast expansion of government power. But rather than join with social gospel advocates like Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins in promoting the creation of a welfare state to serve the needy, the future evangelist was more influenced by apocalypse-obsessed, fundamentalist rabble rousers who rejected New Deal liberalism.” [7]

So, while it is true that Billy Graham even in his early years spoke out against racial hatred you will also find that he was equally against communism, socialism, the New Deal, the Great society and Martin Luther King’s social gospel which simply tried to interweave socialism into the Gospel.

It is also important to point out that Billy Graham was NOT the originator of these political positions of White Evangelicals, but rather he became their national spokesperson.

Graham believed “the race question” and the Gospel should never be confused.  They were separate issues for him.  He believed that Martin Luther King and many other Christian ministers had mistakenly made racial and economic equality a core tenant of the Gospel.   For Graham the Gospel was simple – it was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  And nothing should be added to it or taken away from it.

It is for all these reasons I have just mentioned that White Evangelicals tend to vote against socialist policies and for the most conservative candidates. And it is for these same reasons that most blacks (including Black Protestants), following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, tend to vote for socialist policies including social and economic engineering programs.

This is why it is an utter mistake in polling data conclusions or political considerations to lump in Black Protestants with Evangelicals.  While they agree in principle on taking the Bible literally they very much disagree on their interpretation and application of the Bible especially as it relates to what the Gospel is and what government should or should not do.

American Churches Are Still Dominated by Whites or Blacks

Now let’s bring this full circle back to Pew Research’s breakdown of Protestants into the three categories of Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black – they were absolutely right to do this as these are three separate and distinct groups of Christians in America with VERY different cultural and political beliefs.

The chart I have made below is based off table data from Pew Research’s 2014 “Religious Landscapes” Study specifically from their section entitled “Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups” [8]:

I know of Protestant churches in my area that are Korean Churches, Chinese Churches or even Arab Churches.  The Baptist Church I attend helped a local Arab Baptist Church put on a vacation Bible school program a few years back.  But the reality is the vast majority of Protestant churches in America are dominated by one of two races – White or Black with other ethnic groups usually comprising minorities in one of these two types of churches.  And of these two racially dominant churches the vast majority are white.

Are Protestants really in a freefall decline?

Now that we have gone over the major categories of Christianity and then Protestant Christianity in America we can continue on to Mr. Jones next supposed evidence for the death of White Christian America.

In his interview with Washington Post writer John Sides, Mr. Jones goes on to speak about the declining numbers of White Protestants in America:

“Up until about a decade ago, most of the decline among white Protestants was confined to mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, United Methodists, or Presbyterians, who populate the more liberal branch of the white Protestant family tree. The mainline numbers dropped earlier and more sharply — from 24 percent of the population in 1988 to 14 percent in 2012, at which time their numbers generally stabilized.

But over the last decade, we have seen marked decline among white evangelical Protestants, the more conservative part of the white Protestant family. White evangelical Protestants comprised 22 percent of the population in 1988 and still commanded 21 percent of the population in 2008, but their share of the religious market had slipped to 18 percent at the time the book went to press, and our latest 2015 numbers show an additional one-percentage-point slip to 17 percent.” [9]

 

Let’s now compare what Pew Research stated about White Evangelicals in the 1987 to 2006-time frame:

“The rising political clout of evangelical Christians is not the result of growth in their numbers but rather of their increasing cohesiveness as a key element of the Republican Party. The proportion of the population composed of white evangelicals has changed very little (19% in 1987; 22% now) and what growth there was occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.” [10]

In 2015 Pew made this statement as to the current population percentage of White Evangelicals:

“To look at it another way, white evangelical Protestants now make up nearly one-in-five (19%) of the nation’s adult population, while evangelical members of other racial and ethnic groups make up roughly another 6% of U.S. adults. Hispanics are the largest group among non-white evangelicals.” [11]

So, what is the major difference between the different pictures of these same time periods painted by PRRI and the Pew Research Center?

The difference is that PRRI attempts to paint a picture that White Evangelicals have not been below 20 percent from the 1980’s on and that now they are consistently losing ground over the last decade.

On the other hand, the Pew Research center analysis shows that White Evangelicals have actually had their numbers fluctuate between the late teens and early twenty percentage rates since the 1980s.  Again, like the argument of lower church attendance by the younger and higher by the older, this pattern is nothing new.  If anything, it shows a consistent level of White Evangelicals over the past several decades.

Evangelicals are Actually Gaining While Other Christian Groups are Shrinking

Now we get into the data that should be an encouragement to White Evangelical Christians about our future in this country.  Pew made this general observation of evangelical Protestants (who are predominately white as we have previously shown):

One big reason evangelical Protestants have not declined at the same rate as other major Christian groups is that they are gaining new converts at a greater rate than they are losing people who were raised in the tradition. While 8.4% of Americans were raised as evangelicals and have since left evangelicalism for another faith (or no faith), even more U.S. adults (9.8%) were raised in another faith (or without a religious affiliation) and have since become evangelicals.

The same cannot be said for Catholics and mainline Protestants. For instance, a significant share of all American adults – 12.9% – are former Catholics, while only 2% have converted to Catholicism after being raised outside the Catholic Church. And 10.4% of the nation’s population is made up of former mainline Protestants, while only 6.1% have joined mainline churches after being raised in another tradition.” [12]

These numbers expose the false narrative of liberals today who say that evangelicalism is dying.  Yes we in evangelical churches have shed the unfaithful and nonbelievers from our midst at a rate just over 8 percent.  But we are gaining those seeking a true and vibrant faith at almost a 10 percent rate!

Why Evangelicals Are Growing While Other Christian Groups Shrink

There is a fantastic article that Glen Stanton wrote in early 2018 for the Federalist entitled “New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger”.  Below are some key observations he makes from the Harvard study:

“New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that.

Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis…

The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent…

When the so-called “progressive” churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches…” [13]

True believers in Christ want the real thing.  If someone just wants to go to a social club or be part of an organization that fights for things like “social justice” they don’t need a church for that. They can go join some secular political group.  I am not saying there are not true believers who believe that social justice initiatives should be a part of what the church does.  I have met in person and online many people who I think are true believers who think this way, but I simply disagree with them.  What I am saying is that if your main point for attending church is to talk about and fight for social justice initiatives you don’t need a church for that and that is why many liberal protestant churches are bleeding members.

But if what someone is looking for in a Christian Church a true intense faith and a group of like-minded people who believe in a foundation for morality that stands the test of time in the Bible then they will be drawn to evangelical Christian Churches.

Conservative Christians Have More Children Than Other Groups

At the end of his article in the Federalist, Glen Stanton talks about the reason that fundamentalist Christians will eventually outnumber secularists:

“There is another factor at work here beyond orthodox belief. The University of London’s Eric Kaufmann explains in his important book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” (he says yes) that the sustaining vitality, and even significant per capita growth, of serious Christian belief is as firmly rooted in fertility as it is in faithful teaching and evangelism. Globally, he says that the more robust baby-making practices of orthodox Jews and Christians, as opposed to the baby-limiting practices of liberals, create many more seriously religious people than a secular agenda can keep up with.” [14]

Now I want to add a point of clarification here.

The Fact is that Eric Kaufmann’s book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” is not simply about the reality that Christian fundamentalists are out-breeding secularists, but that all fundamentalists including Jews and Muslims are doing the same.

Below are a few questions that Eric Kaufmann was asked on an Atheist Blog about his thesis that Fundamentalists (Jews, Muslims and Christians) are about to retake the world from secularism:

“Why do fundamentalists have so many babies? Is this a relatively recent trend?”

Fundamentalists have large families because they believe in traditional gender roles, pronatalism (‘go forth and multiply’) and the subordination of individualism to the needs of the religious community.

Is it recent? Yes. First, when we all lived on the land, had no contraception and poor medicine and sanitation, most people — pious or otherwise — needed to have large families to survive. Now, family size has been freed from material constraints by urbanisation, modern medicine and contraception. So values come to the fore, and seculars express their values in smaller families while fundamentalists resist the trend. Fundamentalists don’t actually have more kids than they used to, but nearly all survive, and their relative advantage over others grows. It’s also worth mentioning that fundamentalism is a modern (post-1850 or post-1900) trend: a reaction against secularism or secularised (read: moderate) religion that has become more intense since the 1960s sexual revolution.”

Are fundamentalists concerned with the prospect of an overpopulated earth?

No — they feel God will provide and consider such concerns ‘anti-people’.

This trend of “quiverfull” Christian families and large Catholic families (to name a couple) has been around for a while… And yet, the percentages of non-religious people keep increasing according to recent polls. Does that contradict your thesis?

“No. The composition of a population is always a product of the relative pace of secularisation and religious growth. I use the analogy of a treadmill. Seculars are running on a treadmill that is tilting up and moving against them because of their low fertility and immigration. The religious — notably fundamentalists — are standing still or walking backward, but their treadmill is pushing them forward and tilting downhill. So, in Europe in the late twentieth century, seculars were running fast enough to overcome their demographic disadvantage and overtook the faithful. But today, secularism is slowing down outside England and Catholic Europe, and is facing a more difficult incline from the treadmill of demography. London is a good example: it is more religious now than 20 years ago despite secularisation, simply because of religious immigration and fertility.” [15]

Why This Should Matter to White Evangelicals

A lot of White Evangelicals reading this might be asking “What doe it matter if Whites continue to be a majority in evangelism or even in America? Isn’t it racism to even care if Whites are declining or not?”

I will probably get a lot of Christians who will email this verse to me:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

This is actually the favorite verse of Christian egalitarians, Christian feminists and Christian socialists.  These groups literally read the entire Bible through the lenses of this one verse instead of interpreting this passage within the entire witness of the Scriptures.  So, if you, even as a conservative White Evangelical have been taught this verse means you are not allowed to care about your race in connection with their status in your country let me challenge you with a few passages you may not have heard before.

“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

And the parallel passage to this is found in the book of Acts in the New Testament:

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

My point in showing these passages is that it was God, and not sin that divided men by racial and national borders.  Even Billy Graham mistakenly believed racial divisions were because of sin in the world but that is NOT what the Bible teaches.

Is racial hatred a result of sin? Absolutely.  But racial preference is not.  It is by the very design of God who made all men from the blood of Adam but also divided the sons of Adam.

But loving one’s own family and one’s own race and promoting the good of one’s own family and race is not equivalent to hatred for other races. Racial preference, preferring to marry someone of your race, preferring to live in a neighborhood that is predominantly your race or preferring to go to a church that is your race is not hatred for other races.

I don’t blame Blacks or Asians for wanting the best for their race.  I don’t blame the Hispanics from central America who come from impoverished nations looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

But I can blame the whites of this country who wrongly bought kidnapped black slaves from Africa. I can blame the politicians who rejected Abraham Lincoln’s plan to send the freed blacks back to Africa to avoid future racial strife in America.

I can place the blame squarely on my ancestors in this nation who removed one of the first laws this nation passed, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted American citizenship to “free white persons”.  They literally took down America’s protection for ethnic homogeneity and opened us up to the racial strife we have seen over the past 150 years.

And I can place the blame on politicians today who refuse to protect the borders of this nation and those who say “I don’t believe in borders” or that borders are an “injustice”.  I can also blame politicians who blame all the ills of minorities in this country on my race.  And I can vote based on these principles as millions of whites did in the last election.

Conclusion

I have shown proof here from multiple sources the Robert Jones’s thesis that White Christianity in America is dying is false.  White Evangelicals, the most conservative and Bible believing of all Christian sects, have hovered in the late teens and early 20 percent range of the population for the last half century.  But as secularists begin to die off and leave little to no offspring behind fundamentalists White Evangelicals will experience a rebirth like nothing seen in the history of this country.

Even if secularists catch on to their own demise there is nothing they can do about it.  Because their individualist selfish philosophy of life won’t allow them to fix the problem.  They can’t have bigger families because for them it is a violation of their own “religion” of secularism to do so.

If you are a white evangelical, you have nothing to be ashamed of if you consider race in whom you date, where you go to church or where you live.  And you certainly do not have to be ashamed of being white or for voting for white candidates for office or for voting for policies that favor your ethnic group.

For more on the subject of nations and race from a Biblical perspective see these other articles I wrote on those subjects – “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” and “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?

 References

[1] J. Sides, “White Christian America is dying”, The Washington Post, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/white-christian-america-is-dying/?utm_term=.8175dab35da2.

[2] “Why do levels of religious observance vary by age and country?”, Pew Research Center, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/why-do-levels-of-religious-observance-vary-by-age-and-country/.

[3] Michael Barone, “Is the end of white Christian America a good thing?”, Washington Examiner, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-the-end-of-white-christian-america-a-good-thing.

[4] P. Bacon & A. Thomson-DeVeaux, “How Trump And Race Are Splitting Evangelicals”, FiveThirtyEight.com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-and-race-are-splitting-evangelicals/.

[5] R. Jones, “White Christmas, Black Christmas”, The Atlantic, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/white-christmas-black-christmas-evangelical-christian-racial-divide/383986/.

[6] J. Blake, “Where Billy Graham ‘missed the mark’”, CNN, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/billy-graham-mlk-civil-rights/index.html.

[7] M. Sutton, “Billy Graham was on the wrong side of history”, The Guardian, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/21/billy-graham-wrong-side-history.

[8] “Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups”, Pew Research Center, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/#race-and-ethnicity-of-religious-groups.

[9] J. Sides, “White Christian America is dying”, The Washington Post, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/15/white-christian-america-is-dying/?utm_term=.8175dab35da2.

[10] S. Keeter, “Will White Evangelicals Desert the GOP?”, Pew Research Center, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/2006/05/02/will-white-evangelicals-desert-the-gop/.

[11] D. Masci, “Compared with other Christian groups, evangelicals’ dropoff is less steep”, Pew Research Center, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/15/compared-with-other-christian-groups-evangelicals-dropoff-is-less-steep/.

[12] Ibid.

[13] G. Stanton, “Will White Evangelicals Desert the GOP?”, The Federalist, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2010/03/19/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-author-of-shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth/.

[14] Ibid.

[15] “Interview with Eric Kaufmann, Author of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?”, FriendlyAtheist.Patheos.com, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2010/03/19/interview-with-eric-kaufmann-author-of-shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth/.

A Defense of Paige Patterson and Men Saying Women Are “Fine” and “Built”

Paige Patterson was ousted yesterday by a version of the MeToo which has formed within the Southern Baptist Convention.  After a group of approximately 2500 SBC women sent a letter to the board of trustees for the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where Paige Patterson was President the board voted to remove him as President.

Scott Neuman, writing for NPR.Org in his article entitled “Southern Baptist Leader Removed Over Remarks On Rape, Abuse Of Women” summarizes the events that lead to Patterson’s dismissal today:

“As NPR’s Tom Gjelten reported earlier this month, in an interview Patterson gave in 2000, the religious leader recounted how he had told one woman, who had been assaulted by her husband, to simply pray for her spouse:

“Returning some days later with two black eyes, the woman said, ‘I hope you’re happy,’ [Patterson said].

” ‘I said, ‘Yes, ma’am, I am happy,’ Patterson quoted himself as telling the woman. ‘What she didn’t know when we sat in church that morning,’ he said, ‘was that her husband had come in and was standing in back, first time he ever came.’ ”

Patterson had also been criticized for a sermon he gave in 2014 in which he said women were created by God “beautifully and artistically.”

Tom adds:

“He related a conversation he had with a woman while her son and a friend were standing alongside. As they talked, a teenage girl whom Patterson described as ‘very attractive’ walked by, and one of the boys said, ‘Man, is she built.’

“The woman immediately scolded him, but Patterson said he interjected in the boy’s defense.

” ‘I said, ‘Ma’am, leave him alone,’ Patterson recounted. ‘He’s just being biblical. That is exactly what the Bible says.’ ”

Hearing Patterson tell that story, Karen Swallow Prior, a professor of English at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., was outraged. She and about 30 other women immediately drafted the open letter addressed to the Board of Trustees of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.”

The full letter can be found at a petition page here.

The letter from Karen Swallow Prior and her cohorts begins with this introduction:

“Over the past week Southern Baptist women have been grappling with the video of Dr. Paige Patterson preaching at the Awaken Conference in 2014, the audio of his counsel to domestic abuse victims in 2000, and his response this week to the Southern Baptist concerns over these matters and all that has subsequently come to light. These one on one conversations between women who are grieved by the comments and concerned for the poor gospel witness they reflect has resulted in the following plea for SWBTS trustees to take decisive action.”

What were Paige Patterson’s Crimes According to SBC MeToo Women?

Supposedly he allegedly told a rape victim not to report her rape to the police but to date there is no hard evidence supporting this claim. This is something both he and the Seminary are denying. Another one of his “crimes” according to the MeToo Southern Baptist women was his statements regarding women staying with abusive husbands.  The truth is that he was fighting against divorce and later clarified his statement saying he believes women who are in danger from true physical abuse can seek separation for themselves and their children.

I have already laid out my position on what kind of “abuse” a woman can leave for Biblically and what kind she cannot leave for in my recent article “Why God Wants You To Stay in An Abusive Relationship”.  When we remember that to “abuse” someone is to “mistreat” someone then you could say your spouse is abusing you if they call you a bad name or are crabby with you.  To say that God’s word allows for women to leave their husband over such things flies in the face of the Scriptures.  It is not saying men are right in doing these things, but the Bible does not allow a woman to divorce her husband for just any sin he commits against her. It strictly limits the types of sin for which a woman may be free from her husband in divorce.

Today we have people comparing a husband calling his wife a bad name with him punching her in the face saying it is the same thing.  This is the absurdity of the world we live in now.

But what I really want to focus on here is the utterly ridiculousness of the attack on Paige Patterson for comments he and a teenage boy made about a teenage girl and how he corrected the mother for scolding her son for saying it.

In the letter from the SBC MeToo Women they write the following concerning these comments:

“His recent remarks of clarification do not repudiate his unwise counsel in the past; nor has he offered explanation or repentance for inappropriate comments regarding a teenage girl, the unbiblical teaching he offered on the biblical meaning of womanhood in that objectification, and the inappropriate nature of his own observations of her body.

This pattern of discourse is unbefitting the sober, wise, and sound character required of an elder, pastor, and leader. It fails in the call to protect the helpless, the call of Christ to love our neighbor as ourselves, and the biblical standard of sexual purity. These comments are damaging, sinful, and necessitate a decisive response. It seems inevitable, for instance, that a youth pastor in any of our churches would be removed from his position if he made the comments that Dr. Patterson made at the Awaken Conference in 2014.

The world is watching us all, brothers. They wonder how we could possibly be part of a denomination that counts Dr. Patterson as a leader. They wonder if all Southern Baptist men believe that the biblical view of a sixteen-year-old girl is that she is “built” and “fine” —an object to be viewed sexually.”

The Bible says Women are “Built” and “Fine”!

In the Scriptures we are told that Jacob loved Rachel, “the beautiful and well favored” of two sisters.

“17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.

18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.

Genesis 29:17-18 (KJV)

The Hebrew phrase that is translated as “beautiful and well favoured” in the KJV is not as literal to Hebrew text.  In the Hebrew it reads yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] tô’ar [form, figure, shape] yâpheh[beautiful,lovely,fair] mar’eh[sight, vision, appearance].  So when we take this phrase together it said Rachel had “a beautiful figure and was lovely to look at”.  In modern terms we might say “Rachel was built and was fine to the eyes”.

In the Song of Solomon we are told:

“How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O prince’s daughter!

The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist.”

Song of Solomon 7:1 (NASB)

The KJV calls a woman’s body “the work of the hands of a cunning workman” and the NASB translation I showed above calls a woman’s body “The work of the hands of an artist.

Therefore we can rightly conclude based on the Scriptures that there is no sin in a man calling a woman “built”, “fine” or saying that God made women “beautifully and artistically”.

So to my SBC MeToo lady friends YES I believe “the biblical view of a sixteen-year-old girl is that she is “built” and “fine” —an object to be viewed sexually”.  AMEN and AMEN!

And Paige Patterson was absolutely right in calling out that mother for shaming her son’s God given masculinity.  God created him to derive pleasure from female beauty just as he designed Paige Patterson and every other man to derive pleasure from female beauty.

This false notion that God wants men to have this “off and on” switch that women want is lubricious, stupid, absurd and unbiblical.   What I mean is a lot of women want men to only derive pleasure from the beauty of a woman if he is either dating her, or married to her.  Otherwise if a man has no relationship with a woman and especially if he far older than her there is this magic off switch that must be installed in his mind that all of a sudden makes him not derive pleasure from her beauty.

This belief of this mother and far too many Christians today is founded in a complete and utter misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says about lust.

Most Christians Today Don’t Have a Clue What Real Lust Is

This mother that Patterson scolded, like many Christians today, would probably defend her shaming of her son’s expression of his God given male sexuality with this verse:

“27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

This mother might think to herself – “the Bible says a man should not lust after a woman or else it is just like committing adultery with her”.  How many sermons have you heard that in?  But you know what you won’t hear in those same sermons? You won’t hear how the Bible defines lust for us:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

Romans 7:7 (KJV)

The Bible tells us exactly what lust is – it is covetousness. So now let’s go to the 10th commandment to find out what covetousness is:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 21:17 (KJV)

Let me ask a question to all you ladies out there.  Have ever admired your neighbor’s house? In fact have you ever gone over to a neighbor lady’s house hoping to get invited in to see the inside? And if you did get invited in to see the inside did you ever find it beautiful and desirable? I am willing to bet that a lot of women could answer these questions with “Yes”.

So were you coveting your neighbor’s house because you found it desirable and wondered what it looked like on the inside? The answer is NO.  Covetousness is when you have an unlawful desire to possess someone or something.  So maybe your neighbor lady had a nice piece of jewelry laying on a table as you walk through her house.  If you have the desire to unlawfully possess that jewelry and you start to think of how you could swipe it when your neighbor was not looking that is covetousness.  That is lust.  Covetousness always proceeds theft of some kind.

But yet so many women would scold their husbands for thinking the neighbor’s wife is desirable.

Listen up ladies.  I am going to lay down some logic for you.

A man thinking his neighbor’s wife is desirable is EXACTLY the same as a woman thinking her neighbor’s house is desirable.

A man wondering what his neighbor’s wife looks like under her clothes is EXACTLY the same thing as a woman wondering what her neighbor’s house looks like on the inside.

A man imaging how great it would be to have sex with his neighbor’s wife is EXACTLY the same as a woman imaging how great it would be to live in her neighbor’s house.

So we can rightly say that when Christ said that a man commits adultery in his heart when he “looketh on a woman to lust after her” he was talking about a man coveting a woman. In other words, he is having the desire to seduce her into sex outside of marriage.  Christ in no way is condemning a man for being sexually attracted to a woman or him noticing her beauty or him even imaging what it would be like to be with her sexually. He is condemning a man thinking about adultery or fornication which is the act of a man unlawfully possessing a woman.

I highly encourage Christian women and Christian men to truly reconsider their views on masculine sexuality and lust.

Let us stop condemning our young men for noticing female beauty.  Let us also stop condemning our older men such as Paige Patterson for still noticing it too.  Ladies let me tell you something – just because we men get older does not mean we don’t still find young women attractive.  There is no “age” switch that says we can find a young lady even her teens attractive.  You may not like it, but that is how God made man.

Time and Place

I want to give a final word about “time and place”. The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3:1 “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”.  For example we would all agree as Christian that sexual relations between a husband and his wife are a beautiful thing in marriage.  But even in marriage there is a time and place for sexual relations.  I am not going to have sex with my wife in the middle of the living room with my children or my parents present.  That would not be the time and place for this activity even though the activity itself is not sinful.

In the same way I am not saying it would be right for a youth pastor or a pastor or even this young man to just walk up to a young woman or older woman and say to them “You are built” or “You are fine”.  It’s not good manners. It’s not the right way to go about it.

However if a couple of young men say quietly after a teenage girl passes to each other “Man, is she built” there is no sin in this.  Or if they leave the restaurant and were driving home and they mention this there is no sin in this.  Even if a Pastor like Paige Patterson talks about a random girl in a restaurant and says she was “fine” there is no sin that.  It is exactly as he said – “Biblical” for a man to do so.  It is how God created us as men to notice female beauty.

But let’s say a youth pastor goes up to one of the teen girls in his youth group and says “Man you are built” would that be inappropriate? Of course it would be inappropriate.  Because it is not the time or place for him to express such a thought.

But our SBC MeToo women and many other women in our culture today would have us believe that it is wrong for a man to ever have such a thought about a woman unless he is married to the woman.  The problem with such thinking is that is utterly unbiblical.  Ladies you might not like how God made men and you might not like that God did not put an off switch in men’s head when it comes to sexual attraction to women.  But that is how he created men.

Ladies, I encourage you to study the Scriptures I have presented here and ask God to help you accept men as he created them and accept your place in his creation.  I encourage you to stop shaming men for how God designed them.

And Christian men – I encourage to do the same and study out these passages I have given.  Stop engaging in self-flagellation over your own God given sexuality.  The pleasure you get from seeing the beauty of women around you or on TV or online is not sinful. Sexual desire toward a woman is not sinful. It is lust, which is the desire to fornicate with a woman (have sex outside of marriage) that is sinful.

I also hope and pray that some of our Christian leaders will grow spines and start standing up to all this man-shaming and character assassination that is rampant across our nation.  We need to start standing up to the feminism that has poisoned our homes, churches and country.

I encourage to read more on how male sexuality actually works and the way God designed it these other articles:

Why it is NOT Wrong for Men to See Women as Sex Objects

Why Christian men should NOT be ashamed of “locker-room talk”

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 1

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 2

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3

Is Separation of Church and State Biblical?

The concept of Separation of Church and State was a core part of the founding of the United States of America.  The question is – is this concept Biblical?

Another way to ask this question is – Does the State have no business and no interest in protecting the religious unity and identity of the nation?

This is my final episode in my series “A Defense of Biblical Living” where I am responding to claims and questions of the atheist v logger Rachel Oates.  This also available as a mp3 audio download here and you can also check out my other mp3 downloads on my main audio page.

Is BiblicalGenderRoles.com advocating for overthrowing the government?

I love both the institution of government and my American nation in particular and I also love the institution of the Church as well as my local church that I attend.  But that does not mean that I will not point out failure and corruptions that have occurred in both these institutions that are ordained by God.

There is a feminist and egalitarian writer on Patheos.com name Suzanne Calulu that has been reviewing various articles on my blog for some time.  She is not really writing full reviews – but they really are just quick comments.  Every once in a while I will check out what she has to say about my blog if I am in the mood for a chuckle.

If you search for the tag “Larry Solomon – Biblical Gender Roles” on Patheos.com you will see all her reviews of my past articles.  If you look closely at many of her reviews (which are just a couple of paragraph comments) you will see she often misrepresents me to build a straw man for her audience.  Up until now I have not felt the need to respond but because of recent accusations she has made against me regarding my views of government I felt I needed to publically respond to her libel.

Suzanne Calulu posted a review of my blog on April 5th 2018 entitled “Seizing Christian Evangelical Control Over the Government by Suppressing Women?” in which she stated the following:

I have used screen shots here just in case she tries to delete the article or change her wording.  So if you notice in her title she says I that advocated for Christian evangelicals seize control of the government.  Then in her comment she writes that I said Christians need to “overthrow everything…in order to establish an Evangelical Theocracy.”

In a second review she posted on April 12th 2018 entitled “Suck It Up Brown and Black People – White Folks Rule According to Larry Solomon” Calulu writes the following statement below:

Calulu ‘s statement “He has advocated the violent overthrow of our government by his Theocracy buddies…” and then she insinuates that I should be on the radar of the FBI for what I have written regarding government.

If you look at the two articles she is referencing, which she does not even mention because she does not want her readers actually reading my site, you will find no such assertions by me in either article or for that matter any article on BiblicalGenderRoles.com.

The two articles she is reviewing are “The Case for Christian Nationalism” and “Why Whites Don’t Have to Apologize For White Privilege”.   Read these articles for yourself and you will see the falseness of her accusations.

In the Case for Christian Nationalism I write this about how I envision it would be possible for Christian Nationalism to come to power:

“Secular humanism, feminism, egalitarianism and a host of other false gods have fortified themselves much like Jericho did.  They control the courts, legislatures and media.  Only God can take down the stronghold of these false gods that are entrenched in our society.  But we must do our part as Christians to call it out until he does and when he does we as Bible believing Christians need to be prepared to go in after God brings the walls down.”

So, in no way was I advocating for the “violent overthrow of our government.  I said clearly that only God can take down the strongholds that exist in our government and that eventually the government will collapse and I did not insinuate this would happen due to some evangelical Christian army invading Washington, D.C. But rather it will collapse because God brings it down for violating his design of government, nations, marriage and genders.

How will God cause the collapse of the United States?

My wife and I like to watch home remodeling and improvement shows.  What you will find when watching these shows is when they look to knock out walls they must take into consideration that there might be main support beams.  They have to work around these beams or if they can’t they have to add additional supports elsewhere.  If they just cut out the support beams what used to be a solid house structure will eventually crumble.  Sure the house might look nice cosmetically, but if its structure is not sound none of that will matter and it will eventually fall.

The same principle is true in a nation.  As I showed in my article “The Case for Christian Nationalism”, there are three main pillars which support any nation.  These pillars are common religion, common ethnicity and common language.  If you remove any of those pillars eventually that nation will fall.

I showed the United States started as a nation whose people were overwhelming Christian, were mostly of British descent and who spoke English.  I said the founders in their efforts to guard against Christian Church-State governments left the door wide open for secularism to take over America.  Eventually this pillar, that of common religion, began to collapse.

After the Civil War and then changes in immigration law in the 1960’s another pillar was badly damaged and this is the pillar of common ethnicity.  Previously there were quotas in place to make sure most immigrants to America came from Northern European white countries.  These quotas were removed.

So, in a way it is like someone took a saw to two of the main support beams of a house (common religion and common ethnicity) and cut three quarters of the way through each one.  Eventually when one of them snaps the house caves in.

I believe that God has been holding the weakened supports of the United States together but at a point very soon he will let go and allow his natural laws to take full effect.  We in America have sowed “diversity” or what it really is – “division” and we will reap the consequences of that.  Racial, political and religious differences on multiple fronts will eventually lead to the collapse of the United States.

My point in my statements in previous articles was not for advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States government by some Evangelical Christian army.  But instead it was that once the government collapses due to a variety of factors Christians should be ready to take control in the absence of a functioning government as opposed to overthrowing a functioning government like what we have now (despite its many flaws and imperfections). Even then when I talk about taking control what I am really alluding to is secession or the mutual breakup of the United States into smaller more unified and thus less diversified parts.

Update 4/25/2018:

I was going to do an article with small short story illustrating a possible future breakup of the United States scenario.  But I have really gotten into writing the story and it is growing and will take some time to get all my ideas into it.  So I will do some other shorter articles in the meantime and get back to you when this story is done.  I am really enjoying it and I might have some friends help me proof read it and make adjustments for style.