We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism

President Trump is absolutely right that we need condemn violent extremists of BOTH the “alt-right” and the “alt-left”.

Last year it was 21 police officers being assassinated or ambushed and this weekend a man drove his car through a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia injuring 19 and killing one.  All of these events are forms of terrorism and must be equally condemned.

We as Christians need to stand up against all forms of terrorism.  Terrorism has no place in Biblical Christianity.

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism is when a person or group of persons attempts to bring about a desired political or social change by specifically targeting the civilian population of the region in which they hope to bring about a change.  Terrorists attempt to “terrorize” the civilian population into pressuring their political leaders to make the changes they want.

It needs to be made clear that terrorism is not simply a person or group killing people in order to scare others into bowing to their demands.  Terrorism also occurs in the form the threats or intimidation of the demands of certain group are not met.

So, for example – if a crowd of people march through the street peacefully advocating for societal or political changes this is not terrorism. However, if this same crowd marches through the street advocating for using intimidation or violence to force society to embrace their views this would be a form of terrorism. If a group of protestors actually engages in physical violence and intimidation including burning down buildings and looting this is most definitely a form terrorism.

Examples of White Terrorism

When the KKK and other white supremacist groups engaged in burning crosses on people’s lawns this was a form of terrorism against blacks.  When the KKK and other groups have burned down black churches and engaged in lynching’s this was a form of terrorism against blacks.  When whites stood at voting stations trying to scare blacks away from exercising their lawful right to vote this was a form of terrorism against blacks.

Most recently when Dylan Roof, an admitted white supremacist, killed 9 people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina on June 17th, 2015 this was a textbook case of White terrorism.  Last weekend when James Alex Fields, an admitted neo nazi, used his car as a weapon to mow down counter protestors injuring 19 and killing one in Charlottesville, Virginia this was also a textbook case of White terrorism.

Examples of Black Terrorism

In the 60’s and 70’s when groups like the Black Panthers advocated for the assassinations of police officers (and many police officers were in fact assassinated) this was a form of terrorism.  When blacks marched through the street peacefully advocating for change this was not terrorism, but when blacks rioted in various cities burning down whole city blocks these actions were textbook cases of Black terrorism.  In fact, rioting by blacks has become an almost accepted form of terrorism by our current American culture over the last half century.

The threat of riots is also a form of terrorism.  Think of how many times over the past half century that jurors on certain cases had to consider that blacks in their city or cities around the country might riot and people could be hurt or killed as a result of their verdict. That fear of a riot SHOULD NEVER EVER have to be a consideration for any juror in any trial.

Recent examples of Black terrorism include the Ferguson riots in which many businesses were burned out and looting took place.  Black terrorism that was very reminiscent of the terrorism which took place in the 60s and 70s occurred last year.  On the fourth of July 2016 in New York City, a black man named Alexander Bonds, walked up to a police car in New York and assassinated a female police officer named Miosotis Familia.   Three days later on July 7th, a black man named Micah Xavier Johnson, an admitted Black Lives Matter supporter, gunned down 14 police officers killing 5 of them in Dallas, Texas.   Then only 10 days later on July 17th, another black man named Gavin Long ambushed and then assassinated 3 police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  In total, 21 police officers nationwide lost their lives to ambush style assassinations by mostly black assailants.

Examples of Muslim Terrorism

Whether it was the attacks of September 11, 2001 which killed almost 3000 people or the Boston Marathon Bombing which injured several and killed 3 people Muslim terrorism is perhaps the most rampant amongst an ideological group of people. We have almost become accustomed to hearing weekly on the news about bombs going off in crowded squares or men with cars or knives running into crowds and indiscriminately killing people all done to further the political ideologies of Radical Islamic terrorists.

Examples of Antifa Terrorism

“Antifa”, short for “Antifacists” groups have been around since the 1920’s and 1930’s but have had their numbers and financing swell since the election of Donald Trump and the could right be considered part of the “alt-left” in America.  Antifa Groups believe that violence is warranted and justified against any groups they deem to be sexist or racist or in many terms anyone opposed to progressive and socialist ideologies.

Their goal is to use force and intimidation to shut down public meetings, speaking events or protests by groups which they deem to be opponents of their ideology.

Recent examples of Antifa violence include violence against a white nationalist demonstration in Sacramento, California on July 26th 2016 where 14 people were injured including 7 being stabbed.  On Thursday, February 2nd 2017, 150 Masked Antifa protestors came to UC Berkeley to right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking there.  After the violence and property damaged they caused for fear of public safety the University canceled his speaking engagement.

At a Pro-Trump rally, on April 15, 2017 Antifa members again came to violently intimidate trump supporters.  20 arrests were made and 11 people were wounded.

White Terrorists meet Antifa Terrorists at the “Unite the Right” clash in Charlottesville

The most recent White terrorist and Antifa terrorist events actually took place at the same event on the same day in Charlottesville, Virginia this last week on Saturday, August 12th 2017.  The “Unite the Right” event was organized to protest the removal of Confederate Statues and land marks in Southern States.

On Friday night, the first night of the event, men marched with white tee shirts and torchers toward a monument of Thomas Jefferson.  Their march was a meant to be a reminder of clan marches of decades before. Fights broke out with student protesters at the base of the statue and were later broken up by police.

The worst part of the event though came the next morning on Saturday, August 12th. By that time many more Neo Nazis and white supremacists had arrived but also Antifa forces had arrived in force.  The police instead of separating the Antifa and other protestors from one another for most part allowed them clash leading to extremely intensive violence with fights breaking out on both sides culminating in a neo-Nazi man named James Alex Fields, using his car to mow down 19 and killing one is very reminiscent of recent Muslim terrorist attacks.

President Trump was absolutely RIGHT when he condemned violence on “many sides”

In one of his first statements on the violence in Charlottesville President Trump stated:

 “We condemn in the strong possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides

He was criticized by many in the press and even his own Republican party for not simply denouncing the White supremacists by name in his first statements.  Most Americans, because of one sided reporting by the press, thought all the violence was coming from the White supremacist side and that was actually quite false. Some on both sides have argued that if it were not for the lack of police getting between the two groups and especially Antifa agitators looking to gin up violence the tragic death of Heather Heyer would never have occurred.

I thought this was a great statement by President Trump condemning White Terrorism and hate groups:

“And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.”

However, I believe this statement does not go far enough. If you are going to name the names of groups involved – then you MUST name all groups involved on both sides.  Where was the condemnation of Antifa groups that came to agitate and incite violence? I realize President Trump was under a lot of political pressure but if you going to name names – you need to name both groups involved in the violence.

I am so glad that as I was writing this article President Trump had the courage to speak out against the alt-left that was also was responsible for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia.

This was his statement in a press conference today according to CNN:

“”I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said during a contentious back-and-forth with reporters in the lobby of his Midtown Manhattan building.

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right,’ do they have any semblance of guilt?” Trump asked. “What about the fact they came charging with clubs in hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do.”
He added: “You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. nobody wants to say it, but I will say it right now.””
President Trump also made a FABULOUS point about the error of removing confederate statues and relating it to George Washington:

“George Washington was a slave owner. So will George Washington lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington?” he said. “How about Thomas Jefferson, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson, do you like him? OK good. Are we going to take down the statues, because he was a major slave owner? Now are we going to take down his statue?”

He added: “You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

Hate is not always wrong – it is what we hate and how we direct our hatred

As Bible believing Christians we know that we are to love our brother but hate and rebuke their sin:

“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.”

Leviticus 19:17 (KJV)

“But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ”

Ephesians 4:15 (KJV)

So, hating sin is righteous, but hating people is never encourage in Christianity.

If we were to translate this for non-Christians the concept would be this:

You can hate the ideology and actions of a person or group of persons and even condemn those ideologies and actions but you should never hate the person or group of persons themselves.

So practically speaking I can hate the underlying ideologies of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Antifa and Black Lives Matter but still love them as people. I preach vehemently against these ideologies but hold no hatred for their persons in my heart.

In the political and spiritual worlds, we need to fight with words and ideas not fists, knives, guns and bombs.

“3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (KJV)

Is there a time to fight with fists, knives guns and bombs?

I just said in the political and spiritual world of disagreements and debates and in trying to push for what we think is right we should never resort to physical violence.

But that does not mean there is never a time for violence.  The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is indeed “a time for war” and King David said “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight” in Psalm 144:1.   Even the right and responsibility of a man to defend his home and his family is stated by the Prophet Nehemiah when he said “fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses” in Nehemiah 4:14.

So, when is violence justified whether on a national level in sense of nations going to war or the case of individuals and families?

The answer is when someone threatens the freedom or safety of our family we every right to defend ourselves and our families.  If someone were to come and try to kidnap my wife or children to use them as slaves I have every right to engage in violence against them to stop them.  If a nation threatens the safety of our nation our national leaders have a right to call us to the defense of our nation.

But just because my local, state or federal government passes policies or laws that I feel are unjust or immoral does not mean I have a right to act in violence against them until they change the laws to what I think are just and right. Now there may be times that we as Christians may or even should practice civil disobedience to those laws – but we do not have the right to go and terrorize the citizens of our area until they pressure the governing officials to change the laws and policies to our liking.

Conclusion

While the right of self-defense is Biblical – terrorism is NEVER right. It is never right to use various means to terrorize the civilian population of any region to try and pressure the people to pressure their leaders to change laws and policies to please a certain group.

While there are those on the right like the KKK and Neo-Nazis who try and intimidate or terrorize opponents of their views the fact is in America the vast majority of intimidation and terrorism from a political perspective comes from the left.

Conservatives, especially conservative Christians, cannot speak their views on college campuses or in their places of work without being intimidated into silence by leftists. Especially in places of learning like colleges, schools and other public venues where we should be able to openly and freely discuss things that even cut to the core of our society.  We should be able to openly and honestly discuss differences regarding faith, race, culture, views of equality, marriage and gender roles but far too often these subjects are completely shut down in our society.

In a follow-up article to this I am going to delve a bit into the topic of White nationalism.  As preview of that article we will be discussing the concept that White nationalism does equal Neo-Nazis and the KKK.  The Neo-Nazis and KKK and other violent White groups are white nationalists for sure – but not all White nationalists advocate for violence or are like Neo-Nazis or the KKK.

We will talk about White nationalism as a form of nationalism called “Ethno-nationalism”.  I realize for many of my readers they might be scratching their heads saying “why is he getting into this – this is Biblical Gender Roles after all?” and the reasons are simple.

I have said before that for most of my life I have been a student of history, theology and human nature.  On the subject of human nature, I have always been curious as to why we as humans behave the way we do and what ways we behave that are natural or right by God’s design and which ways are contrary to his design and I think as Christians we cannot avoid the subjects of racism and ethno-nationalism.

 

Is Donald Trump making America masculine again?

Could Donald Trump have been elected because a large group of Americans believe America has become “too soft and feminine”? Could Donald Trump’s strong masculine persona have been a major driving force in his appeal to millions of Americans? Some surveys suggest this might be the case.

“Right now, a large group of Americans are feeling very hopeful about Donald Trump’s presidency. In polls, they show up in different demographic categories: They’re Republicans; they’re Trump voters; they’re of all different ages and from every geographic region…

America has been experiencing intense gender anxiety in recent years, and this is particularly true in conservative evangelical communities. White evangelicals’ ambient concern that the country is becoming “too soft and feminine” speaks to that anxiety, and to a deeper concern that the foundations of life in the United States are changing.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/trump-white-evangelicals-communities/509084/

“The two motivations—conviction and bigotry—are difficult to tease apart. Particularly in the United States, a country that remains more religious that its Western peers, faith and culture are in a feedback loop, complementing, responding, and reacting to one another. This is especially true when it comes to trans people in public bathrooms. Wisdom from the Bible can be brought to bear on any question, but on this issue, the ideas at stake are foundational. They are part of “the way of reading the Bible, going back to Genesis” said R. Marie Griffith, a professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St. Louis. “There’s this belief that God created man, and out of man, he created woman. And these are really crystal-clear categories. There’s something very deep and fundamental about that for the Christians who have … a way of thinking about the Bible as the word of God…

But more broadly, this is also a question about gender roles. In a recent PRRI / The Atlantic poll, 42 percent of Americans said they believe society is becoming “too soft and feminine.” Thirty-nine percent said they believe society is better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for,” including 44 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants. These numbers suggest nervousness about fluid gender identities—and that America isn’t even close to a consensus that men and women should choose the way they act.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-anxiety/484856/

While secularists and liberal Christians may see little to no difference between “conviction and bigotry” we as Bible believing Christians know there is a huge difference between the two.  I can’t tell you how many people write me every week calling me a bigot for teaching the following three truths straight from the Scriptures.

Biblical Truth #1 – While men and women are equally human, they are not equally made in the image of God

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear – man, not woman is the direct image bearer of God.  This is not say that women do not also bare some attributes of God.  The common attributes of humanity that men and women share like self-awareness, emotions, free-will and creativity are part of the image of God.  But the masculine human nature was designed in the very image and likeness of God and the female human nature was designed to complement and help man to exercise is his duty as an image bearer.

God designed man to need to be the hero, the provider and protector.  So, man needed someone weaker than him, someone who would desire to be lead and desire to be provided for. So, God made woman to desire a leader, a provider and a protector. God knew that man would need someone to bare his children and to care for them.  So, he designed woman to naturally desire children and to naturally desire to care for them and nurture them.  God designed men to desire beauty because he desires beauty. So, he made woman beautiful and he designed her to desire to make herself beautiful for man.

In summary – God made woman, including each and every one of her physical and psychological attributes for man as the Scriptures tell us.

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #2 – Because woman was created especially for man, God has determined that man is to be head over woman in all areas of life including the family, the Church and Society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #3 – In those limited times when God has allowed women to be over men – it was a shame to men

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Isaiah 3:12 (KJV)

Those of us Americans who believe in Biblical gender roles are not bigots but rather we have convictions that are based on the very Word of God.  I and every other man have no more value to God than a woman does.  The Scriptures tell us that from a spiritual perspective our souls have equal value to God and we have equal access as men and women to God’s salvation.

“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)

Both men and women are joint heirs of the grace of God and our heavenly inheritance to come.

But just because we are equal spiritually – does not mean we are equal in our roles or in our image bearing status.  God has made men and women physically and psychologically different by design – not by chance.  I gave the reason earlier that he made us different – he made woman for man.

Conclusion

I agree with a large chunk of Americans who believe America has become “too soft and feminine” and that America was better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for” or in other words when men and women performed the roles and functions that God designed them to perform.

The prophet Isaiah’s words could not be more true when speaking of how America has been ruled for several decades when he wrote “…women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

Whether it was women in various positions, or men acting like women in various positions our country has been ruled from a feminine perspective for too long and we have suffered the consequences.

What a feminine perspective of ruling our nation has looked like

We are told that it is selfish for hardworking Americans to desire to keep most of what they earn and to expect that they will pay taxes only for the basic services of government and not for a welfare state for those who do not work or do not make as much money.  To do so might hurt some poor people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot protect our borders and force people to go back to their countries because we might separate families and people from other countries who need our help – even though Americans can’t find jobs and many of these immigrants will be a drain on our social welfare system. To do so might hurt some foreigner’s feelings.

We were told we cannot tell countries that they are treating us unfairly in their trading practices.  We were told we can’t protect our companies and workers and put tariffs on other countries. We were told that we could not inform other nations that we have the most powerful economy in the world and we are going to start acting like it by telling them it is a privilege, not a right for them to sell their products to our citizens.  To do so might hurt the feelings of these nations that we trade with.

We were told that we cannot protect our country from terrorism by calling out Radical Islamists for the enemies that they are.  We are told we cannot control what nations immigrants come from as this is “discriminatory and unfair”. To do so might hurt some Muslim’s feelings.

We were told calling for respect for police officers is racist. Our government would not acknowledge the fact that the black community bears the brunt for the reason that they are arrested and incarcerated at a higher percentage than whites because of the breakdown of the family unit in their community.  Our leaders couldn’t talk about the elephant in the room that 70 percent of black of babies are born out of wedlock and maybe, just maybe, this is the biggest contributor to crime and poverty in the black community.  To do so might hurt some black people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot bring the full force of America’s military might to bare on cities in Iraq and elsewhere that have large terrorist populations for fear of collateral damage.  We might hurt the feelings of our enemies if we accidentally kill their families in during the bombing of cities.

All of these types of decisions are based on feelings, not logic. This is the feminization of American leadership.

This is why it was so refreshing to me and millions of Americans to see a man stand up and not be afraid to tell people the truth.  A man who is not afraid to make tough decisions that may hurt some people’s feelings.

He was far from a perfect candidate and he will be far from a perfect President.  But for all his faults I believe God can not only use Donald Trump to make America Great again, but he can also help America to be masculine again.

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

Both Christian and non-Christian men need to stop apologizing for their masculine nature and specifically their masculine sexuality.  Men need to stop bowing down to Church leaders and feminists who have joined in an un-holy alliance against masculinity as God designed it.

Before I get into what the Scriptures say and don’t say about this subject of “locker-room talk” by men let’s first look at a couple of incidents that made national headlines in the last few months.

Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk”

The phrase “locker-room talk” made national headlines when a tape of Donald Trump was leaked where he engaged in sexual talk about women.  Donald Trump spoke of married women who he had sex with and grabbing women by their genitals. Later he made it clear he was just joking about these things.

Should Christians defend Donald Trump’s locker room talk? No way!

By Biblical standards it would be absolutely wrong for a Christian to engage in adulterous behavior with married women or randomly grab women by their genitals.

“So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.”

Proverbs 6:29 (KJV)

Christian men should neither joke nor brag about such things or engage in such behaviors.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever speaking even jokingly of sexually assaulting women? Of course, we should.

Should we as Christians take a stand against and discourage our sons from ever joking about trying to convince a woman to have sex with them outside of marriage (whether she is married or not)?  Of course, we should.

Clearly Donald’s Trump’s “locker-room talk” included joking about adultery and sexual assault.

But as many men could tell you there are plenty of types “locker-room talk” between men that do not include joking about committing fornication, adultery or sexual assault.

Another type of “locker-room talk”

Contrary to the assertions of raving feminists and others who see most men as potential rapists there are a lot of men that engage in types of locker-room talk that never includes talk about getting women to commit adultery against their husbands or groping women.

Below I have put together a sample of how some men might actually talk when they are away from women.

Just an additional warning for those reading this – I am going to be very real here in showing how men actually talk when they are away from parents, women and the general public.

These are examples of “locker-room talk” that do not include statements about fornication, adultery or sexual assault:

Teenage Boy #1 “What do you think about Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “Well I would rate Mary as 8 with 10 being best.  Jane is a probably a 6.”

Teenage Boy #1 “Why do you rate Mary higher than Jane?”

Teenage Boy #2 “I like bigger boobs.  Mary’s boobs are just bigger.”

Teenage Boy #1 “I think Mary’s butt is too big though.  I just can’t get past that. Jane has a smaller, yet still full butt.”

Teenage Boy #2 “So how would rate them Mary and Jane?”

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Mary a 5.  She is just too big for me. I would give Jane a 7.  She has a really nice butt but her breasts are still a little too small to give her a higher rating.”

Teenage Boy #2 “What about Sarah? She has some sexy legs, doesn’t she? If I were rating her on legs alone I will give her a 10! But unfortunately, she has flat chest and a flat butt so I have to give her a 4”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I agree with your rating of a 4 for Sarah – fantastic legs but not much else going for her.”

Teenage Boy #2 “Now Andrea – you have to admit she has the perfect body.  She has boobs – not too big and not too small.  She has a perfectly sculpted butt and legs to die for. The problem is the face.  Her nose is huge and her eyes just don’t look right. She is the very definition of a “butterface”.  I guess I would have to rate her as a 7 although I could never see marrying her because for me a woman has to have a pretty face”.

Teenage Boy #1 “I would give Andrea a 10! I could overlook the face for that perfect of a body! And you did not even talk about her hair.  Come on from the back she has the most beautiful long hair you would ever see. Speaking of Andrea.  Yesterday she had the perfect blouse on. She came over near me in class to talk to one of her girlfriends and as she bent down on the desk to talk to her I got a glimpse of her cleavage. Holy cow did that make my day!”

Conversations like the one I have just described have occurred in various forms using different language among men both young and old, single and married all over the world since the beginning of creation.

So really, we have two types of locker-room talk that men engage in. One is limited to rating women’s sexual attractiveness by rating their various physical features.  The other goes beyond simply rating women’s sexual attractiveness and goes into joking about getting women to engage in sex outside of marriage or sexual assault.

The Harvard Soccer Team Scouting Report Scandal

“In what appears to have been a yearly team tradition, a member of Harvard’s 2012 men’s soccer team produced a document that, in sexually explicit terms, individually assessed and evaluated freshmen recruits from the 2012 women’s soccer team based on their perceived physical attractiveness and sexual appeal.

The author and his teammates referred to the nine-page document as a “scouting report,” and the author circulated the document over the group’s email list on July 31, 2012.

In lewd terms, the author of the report individually evaluated each female recruit, assigning them numerical scores and writing paragraph-long assessments of the women. The document also included photographs of each woman, most of which, the author wrote, were culled from Facebook or the Internet.

The author of the “report” often included sexually explicit descriptions of the women. He wrote of one woman that “she looks like the kind of girl who both likes to dominate, and likes to be dominated…

The document and the entire email list the team used that season were, until recently, publicly available and searchable through Google Groups, an email list-serv service offered through Google.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/25/harvard-mens-soccer-2012-report/

Harvard’s response was quick and strong:

“The men’s soccer team had performed impressively this season. Harvard was ranked first in the Ivy League, and fifteenth nationwide, within striking distance of both the league tournament and the national N.C.A.A. tournament. There was a strong sense on campus that they had winning left to do. However, after learning that the scouting report was not a unique artifact but part of a tradition that has continued for years, and that members of the team had been less than transparent in their initial interviews, the university decided to cancel the rest of the men’s soccer season.”

This was part of the reaction of the women’s soccer team at Harvard:

“In all, we do not pity ourselves, nor do we ache most because of the personal nature of this attack. More than anything, we are frustrated that this is a reality that all women have faced in the past and will continue to face throughout their lives. We feel hopeless because men who are supposed to be our brothers degrade us like this. We are appalled that female athletes who are told to feel empowered and proud of their abilities are so regularly reduced to a physical appearance. We are distraught that mothers having daughters almost a half century after getting equal rights have to worry about men’s entitlement to bodies that aren’t theirs…”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/29/oped-soccer-report/

Here are some more other reactions to the scandal:

“Yet the soccer-team revelations are a sobering reminder that sexist behavior can’t easily be stamped out through rules, regulations, and imposed consequences alone. The problem with “locker-room talk,” whether it takes the form of Trump boasting about groping women or college students ranking the appeal of their peers, is that sexist speech normalizes sexist behavior. In the case of Harvard’s soccer team, what’s extraordinary is that the talk can’t be dismissed as casual or made in passing: it was co-authored, edited, and preserved as an official group record. While we might be resigned to encountering objectifying speech or behavior at a bar or a beer-soaked spring-break party, it’s sobering to see it codified in the form of a shared Google document. In effect, the scouting report became a set of instructions used, year after year, to dehumanize women.”

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-dehumanizing-sexism-of-the-harvard-mens-soccer-teams-scouting-report

“The nine-page report full of numeric ratings, photos, and evaluations is shocking in its mix of explicitness, thoroughness, and matter-of-factness. But it’s not surprising. The objectification of women combined with a male sense of entitlement is the kind of thinking that, taken a step further, leads to so many sexual assaults on so many college campuses…”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/11/15/starts-with-locker-room-talk-and-then-gets-worse/H05PWvytDLaGmrP3kXr8mN/story.html

So, in summary the men’s soccer team at Harvard kept a list of how the men’s team ranked various members of the women’s soccer team. This was a tradition dating back several years.  The women’s bodies were ranked in detail according to their various physical attributes, assigned code names and what would be their best potential sexual positions.

Harvard’s response was quick and merciless. They suspended the entire team and canceled the remainder of their season.

Was the Harvard Scouting Report Scandal an attack on women or an attack on men?

Let me first say that I agree that at the very least the Harvard men’s soccer team acted stupidly by placing such a document on a such a public venue as Google groups.  But even though they acted stupidly in this regard – no evidence has been presented that shows these team members ever meant for the collection of their sexual thoughts about these women to become public.

But let’s say they had not put the document on Google groups where it could easily be found. What if they had kept the document a closely guarded secret of the team? Would that have made any difference? I believe the answer is YES.

I am by no means saying that every word in this document made by the team was right by Biblical standards.

But the concept of young men ranking women by their sexual attractiveness is NOT an immoral practice or a violation of Biblical principles.

It is also not a crime or an immoral act for young men to privately discuss amongst themselves various physical attributes they like about women whether they know them personally or do not know them personally.

Here is the real truth about this situation that happened at Harvard.  Make no mistake the outrage here was not about a soccer team sexually ranking their female counterparts on the women’s soccer team.  This incident was simply used as a vehicle with which to allow women to vent their hatred for male sexuality.

Examining key words from the detractors of Harvard Men’s Soccer Team

“reality”

Both women and men know this is the reality of how male nature operates.  While some men may not vocalize their thoughts and many even condemn themselves for having such thoughts both sides acknowledge this as a reality.

“frustrated”

It is not uncommon for detractors of the male nature to be frustrated by the fact that they cannot change man’s design.

“entitlement”

This word was used in the context of men feeling they were entitled to these women’s bodies. Now as I have shown countless times on the blog from a Biblical perspective a husband is in fact “entitled” to his wife’s body.  But that is not what we are discussing here. We are referring to young men who are not married to these women feeling entitled to these women’s bodies.

The problem with this “entitlement” attack against these young men is that there is no language that has been revealed so far that indicates such a thing. Rather this word would apply more to the detractors of men for ranking women by their sexual attractiveness.  You see there are many in our culture today that feel they have a right to control the thoughts and feelings of others.  The truth is they do not.  And only when men willingly give up power over their own thoughts as so many have for the past century can others take power over the thoughts of men.

“sexist”

Webster’s online dictionary defines “sexism” as:

“1   :  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women

2    :  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”

The fact is that it is no more “sexist” for men to privately discuss amongst themselves the physical attributes of women around them and rank their sexual appeal than it is for women to privately talk amongst themselves about their feelings on any given subject.  In other words, telling men not to talk sexually is the equivalent of telling women not to talk emotionally with one another.  Yet our culture fully condemns the former while uplifting the latter.

 “dehumanize”

When people refer to men “dehumanizing women” or “objectifying women” they are saying the same thing. They are implying that when a man finds a woman sexually attractive and speaks of her body and its various parts that he has reduced her to an inanimate object to be used and discarded as we would any other inanimate object.

But what these attackers of masculinity miss is that it does not dehumanize a person to view them for their “function” rather than their “person”. We do this all the time in many areas of life without realizing it.

When both men and women get together to assemble their fantasy football teams they are not looking at these football players for their personhood, but rather for their sports function.  What are each player’s strengths and weaknesses as it pertains to football?  That is all that matters in this scenario.

When a military commander puts together a special operations team he is not looking at the personhood of these men but rather their military function.  Each man has unique abilities and functions that when put together serves their intended overall function.

There are countless other examples where we look at people all the time for the potential functional ability in any given scenario yet we do not look down at these other types of objectification.

So, it is ok to make a fantasy list of real football players and rank them based on their potential football ability yet it is seen as morally repugnant for men to make a list of women at their school and rank their bodies based on their sexual appeal and fantasize about their sexual ability?  Do we not see the inconsistency here?

The fact is it does NOT dehumanize a person to see them for their function – whether it be their potential athletic ability, singing ability, fighting ability (as in military members) or women for their sexual appeal and potential ability to bring sexual pleasure to a man.

Yes men naturally see women as objects to be enjoyed for their sexual pleasure. However it is precisely because the vast majority of men ALSO see women as persons that they do not  just grab women and try to have sex with them. Rapists only see women as objects of sexual pleasure and not also as persons and this is the huge difference.

“assault”

The last word I want to discuss from the detractors of male sexuality is the word “assault”.  The implication is that if men feel free to sexually rank women that this would lead men to sexually assault women.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The same logic is used by those who attack men for looking at and enjoying pornography.  One of the attacks against porn use by men has been something like this “men who sexually assaulted women all report looking at some type of porn first”.  We are then lead to believe that one lead to the other.

But this is akin to saying “all rapists and molesters ate food.  Therefore, eating food causing people to become rapists”.  The point is this line of logic is utterly ridiculous.

If a man sexually assaults or rapes a woman it was because it was always in his heart to do this . It was only a matter of the right opportunity arising and him getting up the nerve to act on his evil desires.   Watching porn did not cause him to do it and neither did sexually ranking women cause him to do it.  It was there all the time.

The reality is that the vast majority of men who watch porn or sexually rank women never assault a woman and don’t even entertain fantasies of assaulting women.  They entertain fantasies of consensual sex – not rape.

What if the Harvard women’s soccer team had done something like this?

Imagine if the women’s soccer team had assigned each one of its members to research the personalities and various characteristics of each of the male soccer players and they made a similar list from a female perspective?

I am sure it would be have been far less sexual and more personality oriented.  This because of the difference of how women operate from men.  Women for the most part are relational and men are physical. I don’t doubt that on some level even if it was never documented that some of the women’s soccer team members did talk about various men on the men’s soccer team as to which ones they found attractive and why.

But I doubt even if the women had ranked the men’s team even in a more feminine(so more personality and less sexual way) nothing would have happened.  If the list was made public everyone would have had a good laugh and nothing would have happened.

The Christian response to “locker-room talk”

Karen Prior writing for Christianity today wrote the following comment in her article entitled “Call Out Locker Room Talk for the Sin That It Is”:

“Now the current debate over “locker room talk,” I’m happy to report, highlights our decreasing acceptance of the old, broken morality that “boys will be boys.” …

Not long ago, my husband, a public high school teacher and coach, was in a car with two of his students. One spotted a female jogger up ahead and made a couple of lascivious comments. To the boy’s surprise, my husband responded by pulling up alongside the jogger, lowering the passenger side window where the student was sitting, and saying to him, “I’d like you to meet my wife.”

It’s a funny story. But it’s funny only because of how it ended. That “locker room talk” turned into a teachable moment for a man-in-the-making: make that two men-in the making, because after driving away, the second boy, seated wide-eyed in the back seat the entire time, asked my husband if he was going to “beat up” the other boy for what he said. Instead, my husband sternly but lovingly lectured both students, first about respecting women and then about resolving conflicts peacefully. What my husband did in that moment is what all good men must rise up and do when locker room talk enters the conversation.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/october/call-out-locker-room-talk-for-sin-it-is.html

The opinion of this Christian writer would probably be very common amongst most Christians.  “Locker-room talk” in all its forms whether it be comments like Donald Trump’s or even seemingly less comments about a woman’s behind are equally sinful their opinion.

She mentions that the young man made some “lascivious comments” about the jogger (which he did not realize was the coach’s wife). I am going to take a guess at what the young man may have said.

“Look at the body on that woman. Her butt is amazing”.

Now is this a “lascivious comment” by Biblical standards?

Lasciviousness” is the old English word for what we now call “sensuality”.  It was a translation of the Greek word “Aselgeia” which literally means “out of control” or “over indulgence”.  What it was referring to was someone who had an addiction or overindulged in some type of physical pleasure and it was not restricted to sexually related pleasure.  A drunkard would be guilty of engaging in “Aselgeia”. While thinking about sex or even enjoying the view of beautiful women whether in person or in print or on a screen is not sinful it can become sinful if it becomes obsessive and the central focus of our life.  When our pursuit of any earthly pleasure causes us to neglect our relationship with God, our spouse, our children or our other responsibilities then something that was not sinful at first can become sinful.

But make no mistake – a man enjoying the physical pleasure of a plate of food at his favorite restaurant as well as that boy enjoying the sight of that beautiful jogger is not lascivious, lustful or sinful.

There is a common belief amongst Christians that if a man is sexually aroused by, has thoughts about or speaks words reflecting his arousal and thoughts about a woman he is not married to that this is sinful behavior.  Some may not call it lascivious as this writer did.  They may instead call it lustful. But the problem with such thinking is there is absolutely no Scriptural backing for such a position.  It is based on culture, opinion and peer pressure alone.

The fact is that God designed male sexuality and no he did not originally design some magical switch in men that they would only be aroused by a woman once they were married.  Some people actually believe this ridiculous theory because they cannot accept the male visual and physical arousal mechanisms as God given. It is a sin, in their view, for a person to experience or exercise any part of their sexuality before being married. This is why they preach so hard against masturbation and sexual fantasy.

Now lest someone get the wrong idea.  I teach on this blog what the Bible teaches.  The only sexual relations God honors are between a man and woman in the holy covenant of marriage as the book of Hebrews states:

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

Hebrews 13:4 (KJV)

But young people experiencing and exercising their sexuality, rather than sexual relations, before marriage is NOT forbidden.  There is no sin in a young man or young woman experiencing sexual pleasure from a sexual dream or sexual thought about a person of the opposite sex.  It is what we do with those thoughts that become sinful.  It is when we allow our sexual arousal to turn in sexual covetousness which is what lust is. It is when we start thinking about how we can convince someone to have sex outside of marriage.

But aren’t men engaging in impure speech when they talk about sexually related things?

The most common phrase that is assigned by Christian leaders to men talking together about women in a sexual manner is the word “impure”.  These thoughts about women’s body parts or about sexual fantasies about women are said to be “impure”.

There are many articles on Christian websites that exhort men to not engage in any sexual thoughts(fantasies) or sexually explicit speech with other men so that they may remain pure.  Here are some common verses that are used to support this position.

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. “

Philippians 4:8 (KJV)

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”

Ephesians 5:3-5 (KJV)

So here is what happens in the typical church men’s youth group or young college men’s class.

They are told that sexual talk between men that compare’s women’s bodies or talks about women’s body parts or any talk of sexual fantasies is by definition “impure”, “filthy” or “dirty” talk.  Then the speaker will ask men “Can you honestly say when you are talking about those women’s bodies that are speaking in a pure way? Is that a lovely way to speak about women? Or is it dirty and disrespectful? We all know the answer that is impure speech based on impure thoughts”.

If you have been raised in most Christian churches you will recognize this speech or a variation of it.

If you as a Christian man ever hear this speech about Christian men engaging in impure speech in connection with men talking sexually about women here are some questions you should ask the teacher or speaker when they open the room for questions or discussion.

“How do you know that talking about women’s body parts is impure speech? Where does the Bible call such speech by men impure?”

If the teacher responds with Matthew 5:28 that “Well Jesus said that if a man looks with lust on woman then he is committing adultery in his heart”.  Then you can respond with these questions for your teacher about lust.

“But what is lust? Doesn’t the Bible tell us in Romans 7:7 that lust is covetousness? And isn’t covetousness the desire to unlawfully possess something that does not belong to us? Where does the Bible teach that sexual arousal, sexual fantasy or talking about women’s bodies or body parts is lust?”

At this point your teacher’s head will be spinning because unfortunately most Christian teachers simply parrot what they have been taught in their church, college or seminary.   I understand that many of these preachers and teachers are good men with good intentions.  They only want to please God with their lives. But because of how they been indoctrinated both by their church as well as our culture they cannot see sexual talk between men as anything less than dirty or impure.

They might for good measure throw one more verse at you to try and support their faulty belief that men sexually ranking women’s bodies is dirty and impure.

“I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?”

Job 31:1

There is actually a website called CovenantEyes.com that bases it’s mission on this verse. They and other Christians claim that Job was saying in this verse that he made a covenant with eyes never to think sexually about a woman he was not married to.

The problem is the Scripture don’t say that. We agree that men can have wrong thoughts about women.  But we disagree on what those wrong thoughts are. So here is how you answer you teacher if he brings up Job’s covenant with his eyes not to think upon a maid:

“Sir should we not be careful of adding to God’s Word? We know that Job was saying he would not think about something about a woman.  What does the Bible tell us we should not think about regarding women? It tells us not to think about seducing virgin women to have sex with us outside of marriage right? It tells us not to engage in prostitution right? So we should not think about seeing prostitutes right? It tells us not to think about seducing our neighbor’s wife right? So how can we add something to wrong thoughts that God never adds? Are you not adding a condemnation of men  talking about women’s bodies to God’s Word?”

I have actually had this conversation with several pastors both in email and some of my friends on the phone.  They never have clear answers to these questions because they have never questioned the Christian culture they have been raised in.

But isn’t it wrong to compare women’s beauty or say one woman is not as attractive as another?

There are some people – both Christian and non-Christian who believe it is morally wrong to ever directly compare two women and say one is more attractive than the other.  But the Bible shows us this is not the case:

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

Genesis 29:17 (KJV)

We don’t know exactly what “tender eyed” meant but we know whatever it meant – it is was the opposite of “beautiful and well favoured” which is what Rachel was.

God literally told us in his word that Rachel was hot and Leah was not.

But in this area of rating beauty we as men need to practice discretion. God was not saying we should walk up to two women and say to one “You know she is so much better looking than you!”.  That is not the right time and place for a man to express such a thought.

Now if you were with your guy friends alone and you wanted to express the fact that you thought one sister was hot and the other was not there would be no sin in that. Again, so many things in the Christian life come down to time and place.

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”

Ecclesiastes 3:1 (KJV)

What was the lesson those boys could have learned?

If that coach had understood what the true meaning of lust and lascivious are in the Bible he could have had a very different conversation with those boys.  Instead of scolding that boy for his God given male sexuality he could have helped him to understand it and channel it.

The right way to handle that scenario could have gone as follows.

After the comments the boy made about how sexy the jogger was the coach still could have pulled over and introduced the woman as his wife.  Of course, the boy would blush and feel embarrassed as he did in the actual story.

Then when the other boy asked him if he was going to “beat him up” for what he said he could have said “Why would I beat him up for having the same thoughts about my wife that I did when I first met her?” He could have been honest about his male sexuality instead of hiding and condemning himself and every other man for having the same nature.  Contrary to popular belief today – the masculine sexual nature is not equivalent to the sin nature. Has man’s masculine nature been corrupted by sin just as woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin? Yes.  But in its original design the masculine nature is a beautiful nature.

The coach could have then helped the boy who made the comments about his wife’s body with these words:

“It is normal for you to have these thoughts about women.  God gave you these desires.  God is the one who designed your brain to give you pleasure signals when you see a beautiful woman like my wife.  But you need to channel that God given gift and don’t misuse it. It is one thing for you to privately say to me and other guys what you find attractive in various women’s bodies.  But it would have been very different if you had yelled out the window to that jogger – “He babe you got a nice ass!” as you go barreling by in your car. That would be disrespectful behavior toward women.

Also, I want to address the whole “do I want to beat him up” question you asked. It is one thing If you know that a woman is married or in a relationship with the man you are with then you need to be careful of your words with him about her.  He may be sensitive about men complimenting his wife’s beauty.  Now if he seems to invite you to tell him what you find attractive about his wife then it may be ok but still be careful.

But there is a lesson for you if you are the man whose woman that is. How can you be angry at another man for having the EXACT same thoughts you know you had about your girlfriend or wife? It is extremely hypocritical and illogical for you to do so.  Now if that man is flirting with your girlfriend or wife or acting like he wants to seduce them that is a whole other story.  You have a right to be angry then.  But even then, we don’t settle these kinds of differences with violence.  We use our words – not our fists.

I also want you to realize that while it is ok for you to exercise your God given male sexuality by enjoying the sight of and thoughts about beautiful women and even masturbation – it is not ok to have sex outside of marriage.  You need to guard your thoughts from being just sexually pleasurable to being sexually lustful.  You need to keep yourself from being in sexually tempting positions with girls that you date where you will be tempted to have sex outside of marriage.”

Now what I have just described would have been a healthy and Biblically based conversation about male sexuality.  Instead those two boys walked away feeling condemned for being aroused by that beautiful jogger.

Conclusion

Male sexuality has been assaulted in many ways since shortly after the birth of Christian asceticism during the life of the Apostles. While Christianity today has shook off many parts of Christian asceticism remnants of it remain in our Christian culture.  Not only that but our secular cultural which has been poisoned by feminism attacks male sexuality as well.  So, in way men are getting double teamed by Church leaders as well as secular feminist leaders.

I can’t tell you how encouraging it has been to me to receive emails from Pastors, teachers and Christian men and women from all over the world whose are eyes are finally being opened to false attacks on male sexuality.

Young men are actually joining in small groups to discuss my writings on this subject of male sexuality from a Biblical perspective.

As I said earlier in this article –  I do not agree with Donald Trump’s “locker-room talk” comments.  He was joking about trying to get women to commit adultery and sexual assault and neither of these topics should be joked about by men.

But this does not make all “locker-room talk” by men sinful.  Men certainly need to practice discretion with how they engage in this talk.  The men’s soccer team at Harvard did not practice discretion when the put their “Scouting Report” on a publicly available server where someone might find it.

But if men practice the Biblical principle of “time and place”(Ecclesiastes 3:1) and speak about women’s bodies amongest themselves in way that does not joke about sinful behavior(as Donald Trump did) then there is no sin in this.  No man should ever be ashamed of such speech when it is done in the right place and right time.

And for my Christian friends who will say “whatever you say in private you should be able to say in public” there is no Biblical principle or command that backs up such a statement. In fact it is wise and godly to hold our tongue on a host of issues and speak to people privately about certain things.  And from a marriage front I would bet each and every one of these people would not want their private sexually related speech with their spouses made public.  So this argument that just because you need to reserve certain speech for controlled settings that it is wrong has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.

I do believe though that these events with Donald Trump and the “Scouting Report” incident at Harvard provide us with a great opportunity to call out the misuse of the male sexual nature but at the same time make a strong defense of the male sexual nature as God intended it to be.

 

Working class Americans give Trump the Presidency

In a historic presidential election like none we have seen in the past century white working class Americans(both men and women) propelled Donald Trump to victory.

For decades the white working class voting block had been successfully divided by Democrats and Republicans so it was often ignored as a voting block.  Instead politicians pandered to other voting blocks.

On the Republican side fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians were courted as their primary base.  On the Democratic side blacks, hispanics, the LGBTQ community, teachers unions and workers unions were courted.

But Donald Trump saw something no one else did.  A way to create a new coalition made up of people from the various voting blocks that both Republicans and Democrats were courting.

He saw the working class American voting block as a block of voters that had been ignored since Ronald Reagan was president.  The Democrats were tapping into only a part of this block in courting working class union workers.  Donald Trump saw that there was a vastly larger block if he targeted both union and and non-union working class Americans as one large group.

“Race, as is often the case, played a major role in the election. For much of the election, commentators, particularly in the dominant Eastern media, seemed to be openly celebrating what CNN heralded as “the decline of the white voter.” The “new America,” they suggested, would be a coalition of minorities, educated workers and millennials.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-presidenti-victory-demographics/#24c222ca79a8

But Donald Trump knew that in order to win he could not win with whites alone as he would never get 100% of the white vote.  So Trump targeted the black community and he actually did increase by a small margin the number of blacks voting Republican.  Even for those blacks who did not vote for Trump – he planted enough seeds of doubt about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that for many blacks if they did not vote for Trump, they stayed home.

He made a great deal of promises to help the black community and if he carries through on even half these pledges he will likely grow the number of black voters voting Republican in the next election.

He also peeled off a few millennials as well and in doing so he cut into the new democratic coalition “of minorities, educated workers and millennials” while at the same time cutting into a traditional democratic strong hold – union workers.

In doing all this Donald Trump took states that had not been taken since Ronald Reagan took them in the 1980s. He did not hide this strategy but proclaimed that he would expand the Republican base in this way all through the primaries.

And make no mistake this election was about a lot more than getting more people to vote for Republicans than Democrats.  It was about changing the way  Americans think.

Donald Trump basically asked Americans these questions:

Would you rather have a job and be able to earn your own way than receiving a government check for doing nothing but breathing?

Do you want your government to protect your country not only from military and terrorist threats but also from economic threats?

Do you want your government to stop it’s policy of unchecked and unregulated immigration?

Many voters answered a resounding YES to all three of these questions. For millions of voters this election was not about Republicans and Democrats but instead it was about these very important policy questions that affect lives of every day Americans.

But the sad fact of American politics is that except for whites, all the other races in our country seem to vote pretty monolithically for the socialist and globalist policies of the Democratic party.   If Donald Trump is to succeed in protecting the American people and our economy and return us to a lasting prosperity and freedom he will have to find a way to break up the monolithic voting patterns of these other racial groups.

With all this being said I am very excited at this historic opportunity.  Since George H. W. Bush in 1989 we have had an unending string of moderate Republican Presidents or Presidential candidates.  Both George W. Bush and his father, as well as Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney were all moderates.  They did not want to make vast sweeping changes in the government or our policies.  All of them were soft on immigration and all of them were globalists and free traders.

Now we finally have a President who will stand up to the entrenched bureaucracy in D.C. in a way that perhaps no President in our history ever has.  We finally have a President that will return to the historic position of Presidents from a century ago who believed that the government needs to protect the people not only militarily, but also economically.

After decades of deregulating our immigration rules and the utter failure to enforce our nation’s immigration laws we finally have a President who will bring law and order not only to our cities but also to our borders.

He will appoint Judges to Supreme Court and other Federal courts who will upload the founders original intent.  Hopefully we finally have a President who will protect the religious freedom of our people from the onslaught of secularism.

Rather than continuing the values that have lead to the weakening of our culture ,economy and military hopefully Donald Trump will return us to the original values that made this country great.

But in the end Donald Trump is just a man, an instrument that God has allowed to come to power.  Ultimately as believers our hope must continue to be in God.

Image Source: Gage Skidmore

The Brexit strikes a blow to globalization and is a victory for freedom

brexit

The UK approving the “Brexit”, its exit from EU, is one of the greatest blows to the globalization movement that has been occurring over the last half century. And make no mistake – it is just the beginning.  Lord willing, America will be the next to deal it is own crushing blow to the globalization movement by electing Donald Trump as President this coming November.

Two types of globalization groups

There are two types of globalization groups.

The first are Cultural Globalists.  These groups believe that we must attempt to minimize and unify cultural values across the world so that everyone has the same social values. In most cases the advocates are socialist and to a greater or less degree they believe in the government mandated and controlled redistribution of wealth throughout societies in an effort to eliminate economic inequality. In fact for this group inequality in all areas is their greatest enemy.

This group also seeks to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism throughout the world. In addition this group encourages abortion on demand services and it encourages women to rebel against their traditional roles as wives, mothers and homemakers.

Cultural Globalists have both atheists and religious people in their ranks joined in their common cause.  But the religious Cultural Globalists want to break down boundaries between religions in the same way that they want to break down borders between countries. Also for most religious Cultural Globalists, their religious views are made to fit their Cultural Globalist views. Another way of saying this is – their beliefs in things like social and economic equality trump any apparent contradictions the core tenants of their religion.

The second are Economic Globalists.  The Economic Globalist does not care about the cultural concerns of social and economic equality for people throughout the world.  The Economic Globalist cares about the economy of the world acting as one unit. While the greatest enemy of the Cultural Globalist is inequality for individuals (whether it be social or economic) the greatest enemy of the Economic Globalist is Protectionism.  They do not believe governments should take any actions to protect their economies but should simply allow various sectors of their national economies to rise and fall as the global market dictates.

Economic Globalists believe there should be absolutely no tariffs, import or export taxes by any nation in the world. Free trade, rather than fair trade is their goal. If a nation fails because too many of its business sectors failed then this is seen as no different than if a company failed because too many of its products fail.

Both of these Globalist groups are wrong.

Nations have a right to protect their cultures

Cultural Globalists have tried to cast Nationalists like Donald Trump and British and other European nationalists and Xenophobes and Racists.  But this is not about religion or race – it is about culture. Britain has a certain culture.  France has a certain culture.  Germany has its own unique culture.  America has its own unique culture. Each of these nations and every other nation in the world has the right to take steps to protect its culture.

Am I saying cultural change is always bad? Of course not.

I talk a lot on this blog about how American and to a great extent Western culture has changed for the bad and not for the good. I and many other conservative Christians would like to see our culture return to a different set of cultural values.

But there is a difference between pushing for cultural change from WITHIN and causing cultural change from WITHOUT. It is one thing for natural born citizens of a nation to push for cultural change and another for a massive influx of immigrants to push for cultural changes. Immigrants are supposed to assimilate themselves to the new nations that they enter.

When natural born citizens push for change on a large scale this could be classified as a revolution. But when immigrants push for change in the new nation they have entered this could rightly be classified as an invasion.

In the United States and in many European countries the natural born citizens of these nations feel as though their nations have been invaded because of the complete and utter unwillingness of the governments of these nations to regulate immigration and enforce immigration laws.

The people are saying to the governments of these nations including the United States government – “NO MORE”!!!

We are not against legal, controlled and limited immigration.  We are not racists. We simply believe that our governments should be more concerned about protecting the rights, economic interests and culture of their own people than the rights, economic interests and cultural concerns of immigrants coming into these nations.

Nations have a right to protect their economies

Nations have a right and a duty to protect their national economies by instituting protectionist policies. To be clear protection is not in contradiction with free markets and free trade WITHIN a national economy.  Free markets and free trade WITHIN a national economy work best – this has been proven time and time again throughout the world.   However free global trade has led to the devastation of various sectors of national economies.

Governments have a right to encourage and protect economic independence in all their key sectors to the best of that nation’s ability.  Whether it is in food production, natural resource production, energy source production, financial, technical and manufacturing nations have a right to seek to be as independent as possible in these various sectors.

Nations should only seek trade in areas where they lack certain resources or where the trade is beneficial to their economy and not detrimental to their economy.

Donald Trump spoke on the Historic protectionist positions of our founding fathers this last week:

“We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy…

This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs…

Our Founders understood this. One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for “the encouragement and protection of manufactur[ing]” in America.

Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying: “The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/22/trump_we_got_here_because_we_switched_from_a_policy_of_americanism_to_a_policy_of_globalism.html

There was a time in the last century when America in keeping with the traditions of our founding fathers protected both its culture and its economy.  We need to return to those values.  That is why we need to vote for Donald Trump this coming November.

And just a note to my fellow conservative brothers who don’t like Trump.  Yes I voted for Trump in the primaries not because he was perfect or that I always agree with him.  But I voted for him because of his desire to return the historic traditions of our founding fathers specifically when it comes to protecting our economy and our culture.

But the primaries are over. Trump may not have been the candidate you wanted.  But make no mistake, if you vote for any other candidate than Donald Trump or if you do not vote at all then you are voting to hand our supreme court and the next several decades of judicial and political policy to the global cultural and economic folks.  It really is that simple.

As my history teacher in high school used to say – “When it comes to elections and politics, it is not always about being able to choose the best candidate – sometimes it is about choosing the lesser of two evils”.

As believers we have a right and duty to fight for the interests and well being of our families and our nation:

“And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” – Nehemiah 4:14 (KJV)

I encourage you all to consider this as we approach the November elections.

Donald’s Trump’s nationalism and protectionism will rebuild America

I am conservative Christian and despite many differences I have with Donald Trump I have supported him for President since the beginning of his candidacy last year. Donald Trump is neither a conservative candidate nor a liberal candidate but rather he is a populist and protectionist candidate.

First I want to dispel the notion that protectionism is incompatible with free market capitalism and conservatism.

Protectionism is NOT incompatible with free market capitalism and conservatism

Since Republicans began to abandon protectionism in the 1990s and joined the Democrats in embracing a pure free trade ideology some of them have tried to convince Republicans and conservatives that protectionism was incompatible with free market capitalism and conservatism. This could not be further from the truth.

The truth is that since the time of Lincoln the Republican Party has been a protectionist party. In fact even before that most Presidents of either party going back to our first Presidents were protectionists. Even though “tariff” is swear word today in modern politics until the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 the majority of the federal government’s income came from tariffs on goods from other nations.

The Democrats lead by FDR in 1932 successfully convinced Americans that tariffs had led to the great depression.  See a larger discussion debunking this myth at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/04/protectionism_didnt_cause_the.html

While free traders like to laud Reagan as free trader purist this is not historically accurate.

“President Reagan often broke with free-trade dogma. He arranged for voluntary restraint agreements to limit imports of automobiles and steel (an industry whose interests, by the way, I have represented). He provided temporary import relief for Harley-Davidson. He limited imports of sugar and textiles. His administration pushed for the “Plaza accord” of 1985, an agreement that made Japanese imports more expensive by raising the value of the yen.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06lighthizer.html?_r=0

Our founders as well as most Presidents up until the early 20th century believed in free market capitalism in conjunction with protectionism.  What that means is they believed that within the United States trade should be free and markets should be free but at they believed strongly in protecting the economic interests of the United States from the interests of other nations.

I am glad that Donald Trump is successfully being able to make the case to Americans that we need to bring back the historic protectionism that our nation used to embrace.  Donald Trump is actually the first President since Ronald Reagan to be winning over many blue collar Democrats who are tired of watching their jobs being sent overseas.

Donald Trump’s Nationalism is good for our nation

Nationalism is the idea of rally a people around common historic and cultural values. We need Presidents that will put the American people and the American culture first.  This is why Donald Trump’s immigration message is ringing so true with millions of Americans. We should be able to tightly control the immigrants coming into this nation whether they be from Mexico or Middle Eastern countries and no it is not racist to want to protect cultural balance of your country.

Donald Trump is the natural successor to Pat Buchannan

Most people may not remember but many things on Donald Trump’s platform especially regarding his protectionist and immigration policies mirror that of another Presidential Candidate back in 2000 – Pat Buchannan.  But the reason Donald Trump is succeeding where Pat Buchannan failed is because our nation has actually seen what Pat Buchannan prophesied would come true.  American has seen its manufacturing industry decimated over the last 16 years under Bush’s and Obama’s free trade policies.  Also our culture is rapidly changing because of the lax immigration policies of 16 years of Bush and Obama.

The other reason Trump is succeeding where Buchannan failed is because he has two things Buchannan did not.  He has a powerful persona like Reagan did (albeit very different from Reagan) and he has been extremely successful in the business world where Buchannan was more of a politician.

Why am I voting for Trump even though he is not a strong Christian?

Probably the biggest difference between Trump and Buchannan is the difference in their faiths.  Buchannan is a man of deep faith where Trump is not.  For some Christians this might be an issue but for me it is not.

I am not voting for the Pastor of my Church but rather I am voting for the President of my nation. Often time’s men who make great Pastors would not make great Presidents and vice versa. I do not kid myself that Donald Trump is even a true Christian.  He might believe in God but that is about it. But I am not voting for him based on his faith but rather on his policies and my faith in his ability to protect the economy, security and culture of this nation.

I am also trusting in the fact that while he may not be a strong Christian – he has pledged to protect the freedoms of Christians to worship and conduct their businesses according to their faith.  That is good enough for me.

I encourage my fellow Christians, conservatives and Republicans to join me in voting for Donald Trump tomorrow on Super Tuesday.

Photo Source for Donald Trump:
By Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39399660

Does the Bible allow for a woman to be President of the United States?

WomenForPresident

Why were there no female priests in Israel and no female Apostles? Why were there no female queens appointed by God to rule over Israel? Was it just cultural sexism or was the lack of women ruling over men based on the what these people understood and accepted about God’s design of gender roles?

Moving forward to our modern culture, does the Bible allow for a woman to President of the United States?

A brief history of Women seeking America’s highest office

Contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are not the first women in American history to seek America’s highest office. In 1884, Belva Lockwood, an activist for voting rights for women and for African Americans campaigned for president.

In 1872 and 1892, Victoria Woodhull ran for President of the United States the first time from the Equal Rights Party, and the second time from the Humanitarian Party.

Many other women since then have either run for President from very small parties, or have sought the nominations of the Republican or Democratic parties.

What does the Bible say about a woman being President?

Obviously there was no such thing as a President in Biblical times, so the Bible would not specifically mention it. But the Bible does teach Patriarchy (male leadership over women).

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Home:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Church:

“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”

I Timothy 3:1-4(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in Society:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3(KJV)

Other Biblical facts that go against women in leadership positions over men

Christian Feminists have spent the last century attempting to explain away the clear teachings of God’s Word that I have mentioned above. In addition there are many more facts they cannot overcome.

Never in Israel’s history was there ever a female high priest, or female priest period.

Never in Israel’s history did God appoint a female Queen to rule over Israel.

None of the Apostles were women (you would think if God believed in gender equality, he could have carved out at least one slot out of 12 right?)

There is not one recorded instance of a female Pastor in the New Testament.

While I would agree with my feminist Christian friends that the absence of something does not necessarily forbid that thing, it certainly makes for a stronger case when we have verses that clearly say that man is the head of woman, the husband is the head of the wife, and in the church a Bishop is “a man” who is “the husband of one wife” and one that “ruleth well his own house”.

But what about women leaders in the Bible?

This is the primary weapon that Christian feminists have used to assault the patriarchal system that is clearly taught from Old Testament and into the New Testament. Below I will mention each one of these women who are raised as an objection to the Bible’s teaching on Patriarchy in society, the church and the home. Then I will mention a brief note on each explaining her role.

Miriam – prophet. – It never specifically says she exercised authority over men.

Deborah – prophet; judge; led the army of Israel into battle with Barak, their commander. She was a spiritual and moral leader. She did not seek to lead with Barak, he begged her to. She shamed him by telling him God would hand their enemies into the hands of a “woman”. It is interesting the Bible says she sat under a tree, and not at the city Gates as leaders typically did.

Hulda – prophet during the reign of Josiah. She served at a time when Israel had forsaken God, one of their darkest hours. Josiah sought to restore worship and the Word of God and sent messengers to her to seek the will of God.

Anna – a widow who became a prophet and pronounced Jesus to be the redeemer of Israel

Lydia – business woman in the Philippian Church, but the Bible never refers to her as a leader or a Pastor.

Priscilla – helped Paul while he was establishing churches at Corinth and Ephesus; with her husband Aquila, corrected Apollo’s preaching and helped him to learn of the new way in Christ.

Junias – contrary to feminist teachings, she was not an Apostle, but she was honored by the Apostles for her work in the Lord.

Phoebe – a servant in the Church at Cenchrea, She was not a deacon as feminists assert.

Let’s address the Deborah and the Hulda in the room

Only two of the 8 women mentioned often by Christian feminists truly exercised spiritual leadership over men.

The time periods when Deborah and Hulda were prophets were times of great moral and spiritual decay for Israel. Men were no longer exercising moral or spiritual leadership as we can see in Barak’s refusal to go to war without Deborah by his side.

Let me be blunt – God called women into spiritual leadership roles, as an exception to his design, in order to shame the men into bringing the nation back to God, and into exercising their God given responsibility to lead in the church, the home and in the nation.

In no way does the Bible EVER paint women in leadership roles as a positive thing, but it is something God uses to shame the men into action.

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Isaiah 3:12(KJV)

God is allowed to make exceptions to his own rules

God made these exceptions to his own design at limited and specific times:

  1. God allowed a donkey to speak to a Balaam in Numbers chapter 22.
  2. God tells the prophet Isaiah to go and prophesy naked for 3 years in Isaiah chapter 20.
  3. God tells the prophet Hosea to go marry a prostitute (something clearly forbidden for priests) in Hosea chapter 1.
  4. God took Enoch (in Genesis 5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2) directly to heaven without them first experiencing physical death.

My point is – God can and does make exceptions to his design at various times. But unless God actually directly commands an exception to his design, as in the case with Deborah and Hulda, we have no right to deviate from his design of patriarchy in the home, the church or society at large.

What God says women are to do

Christian feminists spend so much time looking for exceptions to God’s design that they stumble and fall over God’s clear direction to women, as to the normal way a Christian woman should live her life.

God says his normal design is for women is to be helpmeets to men and this is how women are commanded to live:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

I Timothy 5:14(KJV)

“The aged women… That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5(KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear here in regards to God’s design for women. Young women are to marry, have children and manage their homes for their husbands. They are to be obedient to their husbands, to love their husbands and children and to be discreet. When women are older they are then to teach the younger women how to be good Christian wives and mothers.

The Bible does not forbid women from spiritually leading other women, as long as that leadership does not contradict with a churches authority, or a husband’s or father’s authority.

This would allow for Christian women’s conferences, for Christian women to teach ladies Sunday school classes, and for women to write books or blogs as long they are not exercising spiritual or physical authority over men.

I have given all this Biblical evidence, and answered the false arguments of Christian feminists to say this – a Christian woman has no business running for or assuming the office of President of the United States. In fact a Christian woman has no business being in a leadership position over men, whether it is in the home, the church or society at large. God says “the head of the woman is the man” we would do well to follow his design.

But do we need to submit to female leaders in Government as Christians?

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Romans 13:1(KJV)

God tells us that rulers, good or bad, are allowed to come to power by his will. We are commanded to pay taxes and be subject to our rulers. That includes if they are women. If a woman run’s for President, that is something between her husband and her, and between God and her. We can and should teach God’s design, but at the end of the day, we each have a personal responsibility before God.

Would I vote for a female President?

Depending on the situation, yes. The reason is if the female candidate comes closer to Christian positions than the male candidate, I must support the lesser of the two evils. For instance if the female candidate is pro-life and the male candidate is pro-choice, I will most likely vote for the female candidate unless she is way off in some other way.

Update 10/13/2016

The 2016 Election and the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I originally wrote this article back in 2014 long before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the candidates representing our two major political parties here in the United States.

As I write this update to this article today our nation is faced with a huge choice coming in less than a month.  This article has spiked on google as Christians search out the truth of how they should vote.

Is the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman the only reason I as a Christian man am not voting for Hillary Clinton? No.

But in the world of politics we often have to choose the lesser of the two evils.

The prophet Daniel served under Kings that lead sinful and immoral lives and as long as they did not ask him to sin against his God he served them faithfully.  The point is sometimes we don’t get a simple choice between a godly person and an ungodly person in politics.  Sometimes the choice is between two ungodly and sinful people and I believe that is the choice we are being presented with in this 2016 Presidential election.

I would have considered voting for Hillary, despite her being a woman which is a violation of God’s design if she did not have these things on her record:

  1. She is a proponent of abortion and especially the heinous partial birth abortion.
  2. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them provide contraceptives through their insurance.
  3. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them accept and participate in gay marriage(bakers, photographers, wedding planners, county clerks and judges).
  4. She is for going after churches that endorse conservative Christian candidates and who call out liberal candidates as unchristian.
  5. She believes in legalized theft of private property through the government seizing the private property of some(money) and simply redistributing it to others.  It is one thing to take taxes to pay for basic government services – that is a Biblical concept.  It is another when you take what one man has rightfully earned and simply give it to another man who has done nothing to earn it.
  6. She does not believe that a nation has the right to defend its borders, language, culture and economy.  One of the first duties of government is to defend it’s nation from all outside threats whether they be military(including terrorists), cultural or economic threats.

Hillary Clinton has many other flaws including being a liar and a corrupt politician. Is Donald Trump a liar too? Yes he has been caught in many lies. So perhaps on this issue of lying they may be equally flawed.

Donald Trump despite his flaws(and they are many) is a candidate whose positions on the issues of our time comes far closer to a Biblical perspective than does Hillary Clinton’s.

These are the reasons I will be voting for Donald Trump in the next month:

  1. He proposes that we strike the IRS provision put in by Lyndon Johnson in 1954(Section 501(c)(3)) that punishes Church leaders for making political endorsements or criticizing political candidates by removing their status as non-profit organizations.  This was a major violation of the first amendment right to free speech as well as freedom of religion and it must be struck down.
  2. While he has been careful on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage in his statements, if he appoints any of the judges on his list of judges these judges will bring a screeching halt to the gay rights movement assault on religious liberty.
  3. Speaking of judges – these same judges that Donald Trump has pledged to appoint to our various levels of Federal courts will uphold private property rights(another Biblical concept) as well.
  4. He has taken a pro-life position and is against partial birth abortions.
  5. He believes one of the most important duties of government is to protect the nation from outside harm whether it be cultural, economic or military threats including terrorism.

I am glad that God has allowed us in this election cycle to be able to vote for a man in keeping with his design that men should rule over women. I am glad that the male candidate is closer to the Bible in his positions than the woman so we will not have to go against God’s design in voting for a female president.

Other related articles:

How a Christian wife should handle a controlling husband

You were made for him