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.

School sends sheriff to order 7-year-old boy to stop sharing Bible verses

We need to accommodate children with gender dysphoria (aka transgender) but we will not accommodate children who give out Bible verses to their friends at lunch. This is the completely wicked and utterly absurd world that we are living in today.

Here are some parts of the story as reported by Fox News:

“A public school in California ordered a 7-year-old boy to stop handing out Bible verses during lunch – and they dispatched a deputy sheriff to the child’s home to enforce the directive…

Here’s the back story:

Mrs. Zavala made it a practice of including a Bible verse and encouraging note in her son’s lunch bag. The boy would tell his friends about the note and read them aloud at the lunch table.

It wasn’t long before children asked for copies of the notes and Mrs. Zavala obliged – including a brief note to explain the daily Bible verse.

On April 18 a teacher called Mrs. Zavala and said her son would no longer be able to share the Bible verses because he was “not allowed to share such things while at school.”

But on May 9, the school’s principal decided to implement a complete ban on the Bible verse sharing.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/03/school-sends-sheriff-to-order-child-to-stop-sharing-bible-verses.html

The words of the Prophet Isaiah cry out against the wickedness of our modern American culture:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

Besides these actions being wicked by God’s standards – they are utterly unconstitutional by American legal standards.  Thankfully the Liberty Counsel has agreed to represent this mother and her son and they had this to say about this situation according to Fox News:

““This is a clear, gross violation of the rights of a child,” said Horatio Mihet, a Liberty Counsel attorney representing the first-grader who attends Desert Rose Elementary School in Palmdale. They are also representing his parents, Christina and Jaime Zavala.”

“The deputy sheriff said he had been sent by the school,” Liberty Counsel attorney Richard Mast told me. “The deputy went on to tell the parents that the school was worried that someone might be offended by the Bible verses.”

“If students are permitted to pass out Valentine or birthday cards at school or to talk about Superman and Captain America at lunch, they cannot be prohibited from sharing Bible verses and discussing their faith during their free, non-instructional time,” Mihet told me.”

We as Christians need to use every tool at our disposal to fight against those forces in our culture which want to silence Christianity.

Yes some people are offended by hearing the Bible no doubt.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Hebrews 4:12(KJV)

The Bible offends them because it pricks their conscience and show them where they fall short of God’s standards or “miss the mark” which is literally what sin is.

This is one of the reasons that people hate the Scriptures that I show on this blog regarding Biblical gender roles. They don’t want to be told that they are not living up to God’s unique standards and plans for each gender.  They don’t want anyone telling them how God would have them to live their lives.

I had a situation when my son was in elementary school where his teacher told him he could not bring his Bible to school to read at lunch – needless to say I took care of that quickly and the teacher never bothered him again.

I have told my children they should not be reading a Bible or trying to talk to kids about their faith during instruction times unless the teacher is asking them questions that would lead to them sharing their faith. But what they do during their free time at school is different.  God has given us certain rights and worshiping him, reading his Word and sharing our faith is one of our many God given rights.

Our founding fathers believed that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and while we may as Christians agree or disagree on what all those rights are one of the rights we agree on is the right to worship God and talk about our faith.

When schools, local governments, state governments or even the Federal government impede upon these God given rights our founders said of those who rights are violated that “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”.

In other words sometimes as Christians we must practice civil disobedience even if we are arrested or threatened. In the Scriptures Daniel practiced civil disobedience when he was ordered not to pray to God and when the Apostles were ordered to stop preaching about Christ they said “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29)

I pray that more Christians will have the courage that this mother and her young son are having and stand up and fight against this tyranny of secularism in our schools and higher education facilities that would silence Christians from expressing their faith in public settings.

500 Pastors committed to running for Political office in 2016

The American Renewal Project has already received commitments from over 500 Pastors nationwide to run for various political offices in 2016.   Their goal is get to 1000 pastors before the election season begins. They claim to have a network of over 100,000 pastors that are associated with them.

The group not only encourages Pastors to run for local, state and national political offices but it also encourages its members to speaking openly and candidly about politics from the pulpit.

You can read more about them here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-evangelicals-idUSKBN0TU16M20151211#hciUvRuTeYsOrfcy.97

To all this I say AMEN!

Opponents will say “But this violates our Constitution’s separation of Church and state” and “This violates the IRS’s ban on Pastors talking about politics from the pulpit”.

Separation of Church and State not found in the Constitution

Most people think the modern American idea of “separation between church and state” can be found in the Constitution.  It is it not.

The idea of the separation of Church and State was first introduced into American society by a letter written from Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.

Thomas Jefferson was trying to address the fears of certain Churches about legislatures trying to establish state Churches when he penned his famous words that would later be cited by many America courts:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

In essence he was trying to establish the fact that the first amendment protected the Church FROM the State.  He never said anything about the State being protected from the influence of the Church.

Separation of Church and State enshrined in Supreme Court Case law

The legal concept of separation of Church and state based on Thomas Jefferson’s letter was first introduced into the American legal system by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States (1879) when the Supreme Court said this:

 “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”

But it was not until the 1947 Supreme Court case,  Everson v. Board of Education, that the full modern interpretation and usage of Thomas Jefferson’s comments were used the way they are today with things like prayer in public institutions and schools.

It really was a small case.  The issue was a New Jersey man sued his local school district for providing tax payer funded reimbursement for children to take public transportation to school whether it was public or private.  He argued that some of these private schools were religious and this amounted to the government endorsing a particular religion.

Justice Hugo black uttering Thomas Jefferson’s words to the Danbury Baptist association added his own when he stated:

“[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

In later years this 1947 landmark Supreme court case would be used to strip God and religion from every Public institution in America.  It is still being used today in cases that are filed every year.

The IRS’s 501(c)(3)  Ban on Churches endorsing political parties or candidates

In 1954 Senator Lyndon B. Johnson endorsed a change to a bill modernizing the tax code that would protect him from his political opponents – many of whom were Preachers in Churches in his home state where he was running for reelection as Senator.

This bill was meant to silence free political speech in Churches, something that up to this point had been an American tradition since the founding of our nation.

In recent years the Alliance Defending Freedom has begun taking on this unconstitutional legislation and has encouraged Pastors across the nation to practice civil disobedience against this law and specifically talk about political parties and candidates from their pulpits.

Should Christians and Churches get involved in politics?

Previously I stated that opponents of Pastors running for office say “This violates our Constitution’s separation of Church and state” and “This violates the IRS’s ban on Pastors talking about politics from the pulpit”.

I agree with them that this violates the Supreme Court’s made up law of “Separation of Church and State” and the IRS 501(c)(3) code.

But to not get involved and speak the Word of God and push for Biblical values in our society would be to violate the Word of God.  We are to stand for God’s truth in all areas of our world -not just in our private lives.

Does the Bible teach the concept of Civil disobedience?

Many non-Christians and liberal Christians who do not agree with applying Biblical principles to public life will cite this Scripture passage to tell Christians that they may never disobey the laws of the United States especially in regard to religious issues:

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” – I Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

Absolutely we should obey the laws of our land, whether they be city ordinances or state and Federal law IF these laws do not overstep the authority that God has granted to these authorities.

God does not grant civil authorities any power over marriage, the family or the church. When the government steps into these realms of authority it has overstepped its bounds.  When the government tells us to do things that are against God’s Word, or to not do things that God has commanded us to do they have overstepped their God given authority.

The same Apostle Peter who wrote by the inspiration of God the passage cited above, also practiced civil disobedience to his authorities:

“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” – Acts 5:27-29 (KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear here – when our civil authorities ask us to do something God has forbidden or not do something God commands or when they overstep their authority that God has given them we have not only a right, but a duty to practice civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience in the service of God is a proud tradition in Scripture – just look at the Hebrew midwives who hid babies from being killed and when Daniel refused to stop praying to God and many other instances of civil disobedience found in the Scriptures.

Am I arguing for a theocracy?

So am I saying Christians should try to establish a theocracy in America? No. But I am arguing for gradual move to a theonomy by changing our laws to be based on the moral law of God found in the Bible.

The difference between a theocracy and a theonomy is that a theocracy is nation directly established by God and typically ruled by God through his prophets.  God is not in the business right now of coming down and directly starting nations as he did with Israel.  Instead a theonomy is a nation established by men which bases its moral laws on the Bible. 

I believe God wants people to freely choose him and the government should not force people to attend Church or become Christians and yes our founding fathers did believe in a concept of separation of church state as I showed from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist association.  But their concept of separation of church and state and the modern concept we have are two very different things.

At Beeson Divinity School on May 2nd, 2000  Richard Land made the following observation about Jefferson’s Danbury Baptist association letter:

“Clearly, Jefferson saw no contradiction between his concept of church and state separation and having a gift personally presented to him at the White House with a promise of continued prayer by a prominent Baptist preacher on the morning of the very day he wrote to the Danbury Baptist ministers, and less than 48 hours later attending a Sunday morning worship service where that minister — John Leland — preached from the Speaker’s podium in the well of the U.S. House of Representatives”

– Dwayne Hastings, “Religious freedom champion John Leland also active in public policy, Land says”, Baptist Press, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.bpnews.net/5785/religious-freedom-champion-john-leland-also-active-in-public-policy-land-says.

Clearly the founders would not have endorsed our modern idea of separation of church and state where we use it to ban things like prayers in schools or graduation ceremonies.  These types of polices are actually attacks on the religious freedom that our founders fought for.

The founders were against state established Churches and mandating that people must attend church or pass religious tests to run for office.

But there is a big difference between advocating for laws that force people to attend a certain Church or be a certain religion and advocating for laws that support Biblical morality.

If I vote for laws banning abortion – that is not me forcing people to become Christians.  It is me voting on a moral issue based on my Christian faith.   If I vote for a law banning homosexual marriage that is not me forcing people to become Christians, that is me voting on a moral issue based on my Christian faith.

Most laws are based on the morality of the people and as Christians where should our moral foundation be found? The answer is God’s Word.

You cannot separate your faith from your politics, if you are a true Christian your faith should inform every choice you make including the choices you make at the ballot box.

I am proud of these Pastors running for public office trying to change the moral fabric of our nation – we need many more Christian men to stand up and do the same.

 

Lawlessness, God’s Law and Tradition – Which one do you and your Church serve?

historic white church on the hill, bodega, california

In many Christian Churches today, we see one of two extremes. We see churches preaching against traditionalism (or legalism as it often referred to today) but not preaching against lawlessness. We also see churches preaching against lawlessness, but many of these same churches fail to preach against traditionalism (legalism). It is becoming less and less common in our culture to see Churches that neither go to the left nor the right of God’s law.

Do not turn to the right or to the left

This subject of not going to the right or left of God’s law seems to be a very important theme in the Scriptures.

“Be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you are not to turn aside to the right or the left.”

Deuteronomy 5:32 HCSB

This phrase of not turning to “the right or the left” of God’s commands is repeated 7 more times in the Scriptures(Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 28:14, Joshua 1:7, Joshua 23:6, 2 Kings 22:2,2 Chronicles 34:2,Proverbs 4:27).

God also uses another phrase to express this same sentiment:

“You must not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, so that you may keep the commands of the Lord your God I am giving you.”

Deuteronomy 4:2 HCSB

This same phrase of “not adding or taking anything” away from God’s law is repeated in Deuteronomy 12:32.

So in total, 10 times, count them – 10 times God says he does not want us to go the left of his law, or to the right of his law, he does not want us to add to his law, or take away from his law.

When we go to the left of God’s law, and we take away from God’s law, we get lawlessness. When we go to the right of God’s law, we add to God’s law and we get tradition.

LawlessnessGodsLawManslaw

Jesus Christ himself reserved some of his most vehement scolding for Jewish teachers of the Law who added to God’s laws and taught their traditions as being equal to God’s law when he quoted from Isaiah:

“In this way, you have revoked God’s word because of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said:

8 These people honor Me with their lips,

but their heart is far from Me.

9 They worship Me in vain,

teaching as doctrines the commands of men.””

Matthew 15:6b -9 HCSB

The Apostle Paul, when fighting against a new false teaching that added rules to God’s Word spoke these words:

“8 Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ… 16 Therefore, don’t let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm and inflated without cause by his unspiritual mind. 19 He doesn’t hold on to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and tendons, develops with growth from God.

20 If you died with the Messiah to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: 21 “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”? 22 All these regulations refer to what is destroyed by being used up; they are commands and doctrines of men. 23 Although these have a reputation of wisdom by promoting ascetic practices, humility, and severe treatment of the body, they are not of any value in curbing self-indulgence.”

Colossians 2:8 & 16-23 HCSB

The Three types of spiritual slavery in the New Testament

In the passage we just quoted from Colossians 2, Paul talks about human tradition taking us captive. He has used this concept of captivity with lawlessness as well when he states:

“19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption, since people are enslaved to whatever defeats them.”

2 Peter 2:19 HCSB

Paul talks about another type of slavery, a positive type of slavery:

“16 Don’t you know that if you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of that one you obey—either of sin leading to death or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But thank God that, although you used to be slaves of sin, you obeyed from the heart that pattern of teaching you were transferred to, 18 and having been liberated from sin, you became enslaved to righteousness. “

Romans 6:16-18 HCSB

So we have three masters we can serve, Lawlessness, God or Tradition. Being a captive of Lawlessness or Tradition are both equally sinful activities.

Examples of the difference between Lawlessness, God’s law and Tradition

LawlessnessGodsLawManslaw2

What if I or my Church practice some of these traditions, am I sinning?

Please don’t misunderstand me. We all have some rules for ourselves, or as parents for our children that may fall into some of the categories I have mentioned above. Even some Churches may have some rules that are not found in the Bible.

It is one thing to have a rule or standard for one’s life, one’s family, or even for Church activities, and another to teach these things as doctrines of Scripture that all men must follow, else they are sinning.

For instance, if I personally have a rule for my family that we won’t drink alcohol in our home, there is no sin in that. But if I teach that the drinking of any alcohol is wrong for all people, and sinful for all people – then I am being a slave to tradition and I am sinning by adding to God’s Word. God’s Word condemns drunkenness, not drinking.

Perhaps you believe that God wants you and your family to tithe, to give 10 percent of your gross income to your local church. There is no sin in this belief, as long as you understand that it is not sinful for others give less than 10% to their local churches, because tithing was never instituted as a method of giving for the New Testament Church. Anyone who teaches this as a doctrine for the New Testament Church is being a slave to the traditions of men, and is adding to the New Testament which clearly says with New Covenant, we are no longer under the old law.

I could go on, but you get the point. There is nothing wrong with having traditions that you follow, as long as those traditions do not cause you to violate the commands of God, and as long you never equate those traditions with the commands and doctrines of God’s Word.

So the question is what master will you serve? Lawlessness? God or Tradition?

This has been the first in series of posts I wanted to write relating to traditionalism. In this first post I wanted to compare and contrast following lawlessness, God’s law and the traditions of men. This is not just some theoretical exercise, I grew up in Churches that believed in many of the traditions I listed, and they held strong convictions that anyone who did not embrace these traditions as the commands of God, were in fact sinners under the judgment of God.

Many times on this blog I have been accused of being a traditionalist myself, because of my strong convictions regarding Biblical Gender Roles. But the major difference between mine and millions of Christians who believe in Biblical Gender Roles and these traditions I listed above is – there are ample Scriptural commands that teach Biblical Gender Roles, there are no Scriptural commands that teach any of the traditions I have shown above. They are built on conjecture, and opinion, not on clear Scriptural commands.

In upcoming posts I will be reviewing actual doctrinal statements from a church website that one my blog readers referred to me where this Church teaches many of these traditions as the commands of God, rather than the traditions of men.