Why Socialism and Communism Are Unbiblical

Yesterday President Trump stated at the U.N. General Assembly that “One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It’s the wrecker of nations and the destroyer of societies”.   He also stated that “Socialism and communism are about one thing only: Power for the ruling class”.

In my previous article on his speech, “President Trump Speaks Against the “religious pull” of Globalism”, I stated that atheism, environmentalism, globalism, socialism, communism, multiculturism and feminism are all “denominations” of the same evil religion of humanism.

In response to that statement I had a commenter write in making the following statement which ended with a challenge to me:

“Socialism and communism are political ideals, comparable to capitalism, which American Christians seem to collectively elevate. If you are going to say these first two are “denominations” of secular humanism, you must be able to defend capitalism as viewed through the same lens, or your argument is unbalanced. I’m curious to know how you would you back this up?

Yes, I can defend capitalism, not only from a political and economic perspective, but most importantly from a Biblical perspective and that will be the emphasis of this article.

The heart of capitalism is private property rights. In a purely capitalist society, each person retains 100% control of their private property which includes all the money they earn from their ideas, use of their lands or other properties as well as their labors. America was founded on private property rights and capitalism and the Constitution originally banned the concept of income taxes.

The United States government, including the military, was almost completely funded by something Trump is using today to crack down on China – Tariffs (taxes on goods coming in from Foreign countries).

There were incomes taxes during the Civil War and some attempts at income taxes afterwards until the courts ruled income taxes to be a violation of the Constitution.  It was then that President Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the effort to put in a Constitutional amendment for an income tax promising it would only be a 1 percent tax on the very rich.  This resulted in the 16th Amendment being passed in 1913.

Fast forward just a couple of decades and then FDR raised that income tax to 95 percent on the rich to fund his Socialist makeover of America.  JFK lowered the top rate from 90% to 70% and then Reagan did the largest tax rate drop in history lowering the top rate to 28%.

The Bible supports the concept that what a man earns is his and this God given right is found in the 10th commandment:

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

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

The Bible speaks of it being God’s gift to man that he is able to work and then enjoy the fruits of his labor:

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:19 (KJV)

In Matthew 20:15, Jesus when telling the parable of the land owner and his workers and how he paid them for different amounts of work said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

God authorizes the government only to takes pay for the salaries of government officials and the necessary functions of government.

“For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Romans 13:6 (KJV)

And this is also a tenant of capitalism that the government should only take taxes to pay for the services of government officials and things that government should be doing like building roads, bridges, law enforcement and the military.

The Bible also strongly encourages free will giving for the poor and Jesus Christ talked about giving to the poor in the Gospel of Mark:

“For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.”

Mark 14:7 (KJV)

Notice two important concepts though that Christ taught about giving to the poor.  First, Christ said “ye have the poor with you always”, meaning we will never eliminate poverty in this sin cursed world.  Only God can eliminate poverty when he removes sin and makes the world anew.  Secondly, Christ reaffirmed that giving to the poor is to be done based on the free will of the giver when he stated “whensoever ye will”.

The Apostle Paul reaffirmed the concept of free will giving both for the poor as well as giving to support local churches when he made the following statement:

“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

And God builds on this by admonishing those who are rich in this world to be rich in their giving:

“17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.”

1 TImothy 6:17-19 (KJV)

Socialism and Communism trample the God given right of private property.  Communism does it to a greater extent than Socialism in that Communism allows no private property as all property is owned by and distributed by the state.  But Socialism still violates God’s law by having the government come in and seize a man’s private property and then distributing that property to another.

In essence both Communism and Socialism are the legalized theft of private property by government and the policies of these systems effectively nullify  God given private property rights.

God only gave the government power to tax to pay for government officials and the normal functions of government, not for re-distributive purposes.

In God’s design, the poor and those on the lower economic side of the scale are to be cared for by close family or even extended family and only if they don’t have family then they are cared for by the church.

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”

1 Timothy 5:16 (KJV)

Conclusion

There are four ways in God’s order, which is the natural order, that an individual may righteously gain property(including money).

1. By exchanging their direct labor or ideas to others to gain property or by lending out their existing property to others for their use. (Deuteronomy 24:15,1 Timothy 5:18)

2. By receiving such property as the spoils of war. (Deuteronomy 20:14)

3. By receiving an inheritance. (Proverbs 13:22)

4. By receiving a freely given gift. (Hebrews 13:16)

Socialism and Communism violate the natural order and God’s design by forcibly taking one person’s property and then giving it to another which did not earn such property.

And this is why President Trump is right that socialism and communism are “the destroyer of societies”.  They destroy societies for the same reason that feminism destroys marriages, because they violate God’s design of human nature and the rights he has given to mankind.

We’re Not Here Because of Men At All?

According to Elizabeth Warren “we’re not here because of men at all”. This is what she said this last Monday to a roaring crowd of over 20,000 people who came to hear her speak at Washington Square Park in Lower Manhattan.

She even emphasized the word “men” so everyone would know what she meant.

Now those who will try and defend Warren against charges of man-bashing or misandry will say she was just trying to show the accomplishments of a great woman.

Here was her statement in a larger context:

“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all. We’re here because of some hard-working women

So, what did one woman — one very persistent woman, backed up by millions of people across this country — get done? Social Security. Unemployment insurance. Abolition of child labor. Minimum wage. The right to join a union. Even the very existence of the weekend”.

Warren was using this area, not far from the site of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory where 146 people, most female immigrants, lost their lives in a fire in 1911 to highlight the life of a woman named Frances Perkins.

Frances Perkins (1880-1965), was a socialist who worked in the woman’s suffrage movement. She witnessed the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire first hand and later went on to become FDR’s labor secretary and the first female cabinet member.  Perkins was indeed the brainchild behind much of FDR’s new deal leading up the drafts for Social Security, minimum wage laws, union laws and child labor laws.

So, what is the problem with what Elizabeth Warren said on Monday?

First, she did not say “we are not here to celebrate famous men, but to celebrate a famous woman”.  That would have been fine.  When she said “We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all. We’re here because of some hard-working women” the “here” she meant was the modern culture and society we live in.  A society that has a 40-hour work week, social security, child labor bans, unions and a minimum wage.

The problem is that while it might sound cool to say “we’re not here because of men at all” the fact is Francis Perkins worked with FDR and without FDR’s larger vision, charisma and political mastery Perkin’s ideas may have never come to past.

So, no Elizabeth Warren – you were there, speaking in our modern social welfare state, because of a woman AND a man, not just because of a woman.

And is that not the case for all us in this life? We live because a man and a woman came together as God designed them to do.

“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord”.

1 Corinthians 11:11 (KJV)

But now that we have established that we are in fact “here” in a modern social welfare state because of both men and women we must ask ourselves another question.  Were the changes that the New Deal brought about a good thing for America?

Was the New Deal Good for America?

In their article “FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression”, Jim Powell and Burton W. Folsom made the following observations of FDR’s New Deal:

“The Great Depression of the 1930s was by far the greatest economic calamity in U.S. history. In 1931, the year before Franklin Roosevelt was elected president, unemployment in the United States had soared to an unprecedented 16.3 percent. In human terms that meant that over eight million Americans who wanted jobs could not find them. In 1939, after almost two full terms of Roosevelt and his New Deal, unemployment had not dropped, but had risen to 17.2 percent. Almost nine and one-half million Americans were unemployed.

On May 6, 1939, Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, confirmed the total failure of the New Deal to stop the Great Depression: “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!

the National Recovery Administration, which was Roosevelt’s centerpiece, fixed prices, stifled competition, and sometimes made American exports uncompetitive. Also, his banking reforms made many banks more vulnerable to failure by forbidding them to expand and diversify their portfolios. Social Security taxes and minimum-wage laws often triggered unemployment; in fact, they pushed many cash-strapped businesses into bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. The Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers not to produce, raised food prices and kicked thousands of tenant farmers off the land and into unemployment lines in the cities. In some of those cities, the unemployed received almost no federal aid, but in other cities — those with influential Democratic bosses — tax dollars flowed in like water.”

FDR’s agenda was not just bad economic policy, but it was actually an attack on some fundamental principles that America was founded on.  Burton Folsom explains this in his article  “Which Strategy Really Ended the Great Depression?”:

“According to Charles Merriam, vice president of the NRPB, “[I]t should be the declared policy of the United States government, supplementing the work of private agencies as a final guarantor if all else failed, to underwrite full employment for employables. . . .” That idea launched what Merriam and the NRPB dubbed “A New Bill of Rights.” FDR would call it his Economic Bill of Rights. Included was a right to a job “with fair pay and working conditions,” “equal access to education for all, equal access to health and nutrition for all, and wholesome housing conditions for all.”

New Bill of Rights

FDR viewed this Economic Bill of Rights as his tool for guaranteeing employment for veterans (and others) after World War II. But it was more than a mere jobs ploy; it had the potential to transform American society. The first Bill of Rights, which became part of the Constitution, emphasized free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion and assembly. They were freedoms from government interference. The right to speak freely imposes no obligation on anyone else to provide the means of communication. Moreover, others can listen or leave as they see fit.

But a right to a job, a house, or medical care imposes an obligation on others to pay for those things. The NRPB implied that the taxpayers as a group had a duty to provide the revenue to pay for the medical care, the houses, the education, and the jobs that millions of Americans would be demanding if the new bill of rights became law. In practical terms this meant that, say, a polio victim’s right to a wheelchair properly diminished all taxpayers’ rights to keep the income they had earned. In other words, the rights announced in the Economic Bill of Rights contradicted the property rights promised to Americans in their Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution.”

A guaranteed income, “equal access to education for all, equal access to health and nutrition for all, and wholesome housing conditions for all” sounds like something we are hearing today from many Democrats whether they deny the “Socialist” label or not.  As the old saying goes “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”.

This ideology is not new.  Its been tried time and time and again and it continues to fail.  It fails because it violates how God has designed human nature and it also fails to take into account how sin corrupts God’s design of human nature.

How the New Deal Hurt American Culture for the Worse

People are told a false narrative today that before the New Deal there was no social safety net when in fact there was.  The social safety net was the one that God designed – which was the family and the church.

The Scriptures tell us that God has declared that it is the family and the church that are to care for the poor and needy. The first level of God’s social safety net is the family.

“4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God…

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

1 Timothy 5: 4 & 8 (KJV)

“If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.”

1 Timothy 5:16 (KJV)

And it is only if a person has no family to help them, that the church should then step in to help the poor.  And then this giving for the poor is to be given of one’s free will, not under compulsion.

“6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 (KJV)

Even in the Old Testament theocracy of Israel where God commanded giving for the poor, there was no such thing as tax collector.  The giving was freely done by individuals to help the poor and needy around them.

And this is one the big divides between Leftists and those who believe in freedom.  In his article “Whatever You May Think of Republicans, Don’t Call Them ‘Stingy’” John Tamny writes:

“Republicans are greedy. They’re “out for themselves” as evidenced by their reflexive support of “tax cuts for the rich.” According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, the GOP is the party of “hate.”

Conversely, it’s safe to say that the Democrats are rather charity minded. Figure that their voting habits are invariably informed by compassion for the have nots. Democrats feel, and their intense emotions are deep when it comes to correcting what they see as societal injustices of the economic variety.

Except that such an impression about charity and charitable giving would be incorrect

According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, “Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.” Sullivan was referencing a study published last month in the academic journal, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. The study was a creation of four research professors “who set out to explore how political differences affect charitable giving.” As Sullivan noted in his analysis of the report, the “more Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.”

As Arthur Brooks showed in his 2006 book Who Really Cares, U.S. households in the top 10 percent of income accounted for at least a quarter of all money donated, while U.S. households with net worths of over a million dollars were the source of over half of all charitable gifts. Brooks’s study also confirmed what the more recent one did: Republicans give more than Democrats do to charity, and do so at all levels of income.”

In other words, most Leftists, Socialists and Democrats are only generous with other people’s money.  While most Conservatives and Republicans who believe in the God given right of private property, are highly generous with their private property in helping the poor and needy around them through their churches or private charitable organizations.

And this was one of the worst impacts of the New Deal on American culture.  People no longer saw it as their duty to take in their parents or other relatives in their old age. Extended family members no longer saw it as their duty to care for the poor relatives.  And this affected giving and participation in church charitable organizations as well.

This change gave powers and responsibilities that were meant for families and churches to the government and in the process this change weakened both the institutions of the family and church.

No, Socialists Did Not Give Us the Weekend – God did

I just had to chuckle when I read Elizabeth Warren’s statement that Francis Perkins and the New Deal gave us “the Weekend”.  Actually, it was God who gave us the concept of the weekend.

“9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates”

Exodus 20:9-10 (KJV)

Now we know under the New Covenant that we do not have to take our day of rest on Saturday, we can do it on Sunday or even another day of the week.

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”

Colossians 2:16 (KJV)

But the concept of a day of rest, a “weekend” of sorts, was God’s design. And Americans believed in this long before the New Deal. In fact, it was illegal in many parts of the United States to work on Sunday throughout the 18th and 19th centuries and even in the first half of the 20th century.

Conclusion

Elizabeth Warren was flat wrong that society has come to where it has only because of women and not “because of men at all”.  Men have cooperated with and helped women and women have cooperated with and helped men to get us where we are today.  And where we are today is not good thing from God’s perspective.

I would argue that men cooperated with women in many ways that they should not have.  One of the biggest mistakes men cooperated with women on was in voting for woman’s suffrage in 1919 and 1920.  After woman’s suffrage, the New Deal helped to further weaken the place of the family and the church in society.

And just as feminism has proven to be a failure, so too has socialism.  Every time socialism is tried, it fails.  And in the same way that feminism can only exist on the backs of men if they allow it, so too social welfare states can only exist based on the success of capitalism within their nations.

On the subject of child labor laws, I would encourage you to read Jeffery’s Tucker’s article for the Mises Institute entitled “The Trouble With Child Labor Laws” .  And on the subject of Minimum wage laws you should check out this article by Jon Miltimore entitled “The New York Times Explains Why the Minimum Wage Should Be $0.00” .

Exposing the Myth That White Christian America Is Dying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The False “Lower Religious Affiliation by Age” Argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Sectarianism is as American as Apple Pie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Differences between Evangelical, Mainline and Black Protestants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Evangelical Opposition to Socialism and Social Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Churches Are Still Dominated by Whites or Blacks

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

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

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

Are Protestants really in a freefall decline?

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evangelicals are Actually Gaining While Other Christian Groups are Shrinking

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

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

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

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

Why Evangelicals Are Growing While Other Christian Groups Shrink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Christians Have More Children Than Other Groups

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

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

Now I want to add a point of clarification here.

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

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

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

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

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

Are fundamentalists concerned with the prospect of an overpopulated earth?

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

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

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

Why This Should Matter to White Evangelicals

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

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

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

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

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

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

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

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

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

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

 References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[12] Ibid.

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

[14] Ibid.

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

The Pope calls for Christians to violate God’s first command to mankind

Because of comments that were inappropriately attributed directly to the Pope and not Peter Raven as they should have been I have decided to retract my post as well.

It has been brought my attention that lifesitenews.com has printed this correction of the article I quoted at the begining of this post:
“March 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – On March 3, LifeSite published an article originally titled: “‘Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children,’ claims Vatican academy member.” That article misquoted botanist and environmentalist Peter Raven, who was reported to have said at a Vatican press conference that, “Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children to make the world more sustainable.” After reviewing audio recordings of the press conference, LifeSite has amended the story to accurately reflect Raven’s words.

What he actually said was, “We need at some point to have a limited number of people which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued that you should not have more children than you can bring up properly.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/correction-vatican-academy-member-misquoted-in-story-on-pope-francis

This however does not change my suspicion of this Pope in regard to his alliance with environmentalism.   It would not surprise me if over time he actually did publicly accept the overpopulation myth.  But to date there is no official evidence it.

I still do not agree that the Pope allowed an avid forced abortion promoter to speak and I do believe the overpopulation ideology had a wide audience at this Vatican summit.  Something the Pope should never have allowed.

The American Idol of Equality

The Bible does not support the modern American concept of equality. In fact in some ways American ideas about equality are completely at odds with the Bible. But the unfortunate truth is that over the past century most American Christians have willing laid down their Biblical faith on the altar of their new god – the god of equality.

It is a sad fact that in 2016 more Americans believe in gender equality than believe in God. According to a 2015 Pew survey, 86 percent of Americans believe in God while another Pew survey reveals that 91 percent of Americans believe in advancing the social equality of women.

“Pew Research Center surveys are not the only ones that have found a long-term decline in the overall share of Americans who say they believe in God. For example, 86% of Americans said in a 2014 Gallup poll they believed in God or a universal spirit, down from 96% in 1994 and the lowest figure since Gallup first asked the question in 1976.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/04/americans-faith-in-god-may-be-eroding/

“…the highest levels of support for gender equality are found in Canada, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Roughly nine-in-ten or more in these countries say gender equality is very important.”

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/08/strong-global-support-for-gender-equality-especially-among-women/

And it is not just gender equality.  Whether it be income equality, education equality, racial equality, sexual orientation equality, healthcare equality and host of other “equalities” it is undeniable that the American culture as well as the rest of western countries have bowed their knees to the god of equality.

How should Bible believing Christians react to our culture’s emphasis on these various equality ideologies?

When it comes to this issue of equality we have two choices as Christians.

We can let our beliefs about equality dictate our beliefs about the Bible

Sadly many professing Christians in America and around the western world have chosen this first approach to the subject of equality. While their beliefs in equality are absolute – their beliefs in the Bible as God’s perfect and inspired word are not. Any part of the Bible that contradicts with what their god of equality stands for are dismissed as “cultural” or “temporary” for Biblical times only. Others teach a false Gospel that Christ came not just to die on the cross but to bring about social equality.

We can let our beliefs about the Bible dictate our beliefs about equality

Fewer Christians today than at any point in the history of Christendom believe that the Bible stands as the inerrant Word of God. Yes as Bible believing Christians we understand that we are not under the civil laws, sacrificial laws, cleanliness laws, dietary laws and priestly laws that God gave to Israel as theocracy.  But God’s lasting moral law was enforced and strengthened under the new law of Christ in the form of the New Testament.

We believe what the Apostle Paul wrote when he said this about his writings as well as those of the other Apostles:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

I Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

We know that the New Testament stands as the final revelation of God built upon the moral law of the Old Testament.  When accept this fact, then we will accept that the New Testament not only left certain inequalities intact (like slavery) but it also enshrined and reinforced other inequalities such as the social inequality of men and women.  Any honest reading of the New Testament reveals this to be true.

Now that we have established that Bible believing Christians must view the subject of equality through the lenses of the Scriptures we will now look at some hot button areas of equality in American culture today.

What does the Bible say about racial and gender equality?

The Bible teaches that all human beings, men and women and people of all races are equally human.

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

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

All human beings regardless of their gender or race are equally as human as the first man Adam was and we ought never to regard a person as being less than human because they are a certain gender or race.

The Bible teaches not only the equality of our common humanity but also our spiritual equality as believers in Christ regardless of race, creed or gender:

“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)

Does the Bible support the concept of equal justice before the law?

Yes it does. The Bible teaches that all people are to be treated fairly in the eyes of the law:

“You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.”

Deuteronomy 16:19(NASB)

So if a rich man commits a crime and poor man commits a crime they both should face the same justice. If a man commits a crime or a woman commits a crime they should face they justice.  If a black man commits a crime or white man commits a crime they should face the same justice.

What does the Bible say about income equality?

The Bible talks about workers being paid the wages they agreed to be paid but it does not say workers or people in general must be paid equally.  An employer and an employee agree to a wage.  But that employer does not have pay more than the agreed wage because he pays other employees more.

In one of Christ’s parables he talks about a land owner who needs his fields harvested quickly in Matthew 20:1-15. The land owner goes out into the town looking for workers to agree to work in his field that day.  He starts off early in the morning finding some workers and they agree to work for a denarius which was the typical wage for a 10 hour work for field workers.

But he needed more workers for his fields so throughout the day and even towards the end of the day the land owner kept going out and getting workers.

At the end of the day he paid all his workers the same wage for that day even though some had only worked the last few hours of the day while others had worked all day long.  This was the response of the first workers he hired who agree to their wage of a denarius:

“10 When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’ 13 But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’”

Matthew 20:10-15(NASB)

Some have tried to misinterpret this story as teaching that workers must all be paid the same when clearly that is not the case. This story from Christ is actually a powerful example of the natural private property rights that God has given to mankind. Notice what the landowner says to the workers – “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?”

The landowner by paying the men who worked only an hour the same as those who worked 10 hours was paying his workers unequally.  The men who worked at the end of the day got an entire day’s wages while those who worked all day got the same wage.

As Bible believing Christians we should NOT support “equal pay for equal work” laws as these laws violate the natural private property rights that God has given to man.

A business owner has the right to do what they will with their own property including determining the hourly wages of their employees. If a manager chooses to pay blonde people more money per hour than brown haired people or men more than women that is his right as Christ said “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?” We may not agree as workers with how our employers decide our wages but at the end of the day if we agreed to that wage we are not to be envious of another person making more money.

This is the complete opposite of how Americans are taught to view their employers.  We have people suing all the time for unequal pay and this is a violation of the private property rights of the owners of these companies.

On the larger issue of income equality Christ said this:

“7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.”

Mark 14:7 (NASB)

Both in the Old and New Testaments we are encouraged to help the poor.  But the fact is that there will ALWAYS be poor people and there will always be rich people and sometimes there will be those in between. But we will never eliminate poverty in this world.

The giving to the poor in the Old and New Testament was always a temporary thing. And in some cases the poor would have to work for their food.   A man’s giving to the poor was commanded by God and enforced by God – not the government of the nation of Israel.  They did not have tax collectors going around assessing people’s land and taking from them and redistributing to the poor. It was PRIVATE charitable giving, not government taxation and redistribution of wealth as we have in America and other western countries.

Also the giving to the poor was never meant to encourage laziness – in fact the Apostle Paul warns against church giving food to people who are able bodied and could work:

“10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

II Thessalonians 3:19 (KJV)

In the New Testament the specific formulas for charity given to Israel as a theocracy are done away with and giving was to be completely based on one’s free will:

“7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.”

2 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV)

There are many passages throughout the Scriptures that talk about the protection of private property.  In fact in many places in the Old Testament we see laws proscribing remedies for the violation of private property rights. Theft of private property was seen as a much more serious thing than we see it today.

“15 Thou shalt not steal…

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

Exodus 20:15-17

Civil government is never granted the right to tax for income redistribution purposes.  To do so is tantamount to legalized theft. The poor are to be supported by private free will charity, not government confiscation of private property for the purposes of trying to bring about income equality.

Socialism and Communism are in direct contradiction with the natural private property rights God has given to man.

So here is the point about income inequality from a Biblical perspective.  The Bible clearly respects private property rights as well as the right of workers to be paid the wage they agreed upon. An owner of a company may pay his workers different wages that they have agreed to and they are not to be envious of what he pays their fellow employees.  The government does have the right to tax but this right should never cancel out a man’s private property rights.

Does the Bible support sexual orientation equality?

The Bible does NOT support the right of gays, lesbians and transgender people to engage in these lifestyles nor does it say that Christians cannot discriminate against these people in offering services to them(like florists, photographers, etc.).

The Bible clearly condemns these types of lifestyles as sinful:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

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

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

Does the Bible support healthcare equality?

I would refer you back up to the income inequality section. No the Bible does not require that we offer free healthcare to anyone any more than it requires us to guarantee free food and shelter to all.  Now should people, especially the wealthy donate to hospitals and help take care of the poor? Yes.

“17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good [a]works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.”

I Timothy 6:17-19 (NASB)

But again this should be of their own free will.  It should not be based on government confiscation of property and redistribution of wealth.

Does the Bible support education equality?

Again I would refer you back to the section on income inequality.  We do not have a God given right to other’s people’s money to pay for our education. As believers and followers of the Bible we value education.

“A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:”

Proverbs 1:5 (KJV)

But let’s be honest that just like equality – education has become an idol in American society.

“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

Ecclesiastes 12:12 (KJV)

We have thousands of young people believing they are entitled to a free college education when they are NOT.  In fact it can be shown that education standards have dropped while education costs have skyrocketed because of this philosophy that everyone must go to college.  Universities and colleges are flooded with people who should not be there. I have two words for you – it is called “skilled trades”.

Does the Bible support equal rights for all human beings?

No it does not.  Now you might say “Wait a minute! You just said in an earlier section that we are to regard all people regardless of race or gender as equally human – doesn’t that mean that if all people are equally human they should have equal rights?” The answer my friends is no.

Now we can grant equal rights in certain areas like we did with race and religion here.  The Bible does not forbid us from granting these types of equality.

But there was nothing unbiblical about the racial and ethnic quotas that the US Government had from 1790 to 1965 when racial and ethnic quotas were outlawed as considerations for allowing immigrants into the United States. A nation has the right to preserve its cultural, racial and ethnic makeup through controlling what persons may immigrate to its country.

But if Americans decided to place restrictions or stop immigration from certain countries as we are considering today because of the war with Islamic radicals this is not an immoral action by Biblical standards.

Now unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights in the area of gender rights Gods has placed firm restrictions on this regardless of what civil governments decide.

While American law may grant women equal rights with men – Biblical law does not.  And unlike the issue of equal rights based on race or ethnic origin or religious liberty rights God has not left the issue of gender rights open.

Woman are to submit to their fathers and then their husbands when they marry:

“3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.

9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.”

Numbers 30:3-9 (KJV)

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 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. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man in the Church

“34 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. 35 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.”

I Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

Woman is to submit to Man 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)

So yes our American society has granted women equal rights with their husbands – but God has not. Another way of putting this is – the American government over the last century as legalized women rebelling against their husbands.

Christian women in America are faced with the same choice that Eve, the first woman, faced in the Garden of Eden:

“1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which theLord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1-4 (KJV)

Will you as a woman take the forbidden fruit? Will you try and be equal with your husband as Eve tried to be equal with God?

Will you take advantage of the sin your government condones and rebel against your husband’s authority or will you resist that temptation and follow God’s law?

Conclusion

While the Bible supports such concepts that all people are equally human and equal justice under the law it does not support the modern American philosophy of equality.

The philosophies of socialism, feminism and humanism which are all children of the philosophy of equality are also in direct contradiction with the Word of God.

We all have a choice to make – will we worship the god of equality or the God of the Bible?

“Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

Matthew 4:10 (KJV)

See the articles below that are related to this subject of equality:

Biblical Human Rights vs American Human Rights

Does the Bible teach the concept of “Human Property”?

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

Swiss reject free income plan

Is actually having to work for a living an old fashioned and outdated idea? About a quarter of the Swiss people think it is. Thankfully about three quarters of the Swiss still have their common sense and voted against this revolutionary proposal on their ballot.

Here is more on this story:

“Conservative Switzerland is the first country to hold a national referendum on an unconditional basic income, but others including Finland are examining similar plans as societies ponder a world where robots replace humans in the workforce.

Olivier, a 26-year-old carpenter who works on construction sites and runs a small business designing and building furniture, said he voted “yes”.

“For me it would be a great opportunity to put my focus on my passion and not go to work just for a living,” he said.”

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/swiss-voters-decide-guaranteed-monthly-income-plan-103534182–business.html

But plans like this are being considered in other European countries. What people do not realize is when you give people a free basic income then you take away all incentives for people in lower income jobs to work.

In many ways President Obama has tried to give a free basic income through expanded food stamp programs and other government assistance programs over his two terms in office.

Food stamp recipients up 42 percent under Obama

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/

There is a simple truth in the world – when you give people free food they will work less or not at all.  That is why it is no coincidence that under Obama we also have one of the lowest workforce participation rates since the Great Depression.

The Bible while encouraging us to help the truly poor and needy does not ever tell us to give unending free government assistance to people.   This concept can be found nowhere in the Scriptures.

This is the Bible’s answer to motivating people to work:

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. ” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

As Christians and as Americans while we must help those who are truly in need we cannot in our trying to do good encourage the sin of laziness.

How the social safety net encourages divorce

woman falling into net

How could things like joint custody, child support, alimony and equal property division cause more divorce? The answer is this – if you make something easier to do, more people will do it.

Take health care for example, our current system often times makes people pay small copays when they go for medical care, and when they don’t feel the cost, they will go the doctor for the smallest reasons increasing crowding of medical facilities and taking away resources from people who truly need critical medical care. But when people are made to pay larger copays, it makes them think twice before they go to the doctor and this reduces overuse and frivolous use of medical facilities.

The same principle applies to divorce. Before the mid 1800’s and throughout most of human history women were considered the property of their husbands, along with their children. In the rare cases that a woman actually did secure a divorce from her husband, she left only with the clothes on her back, not her children, and not any property.

You can imagine that under these circumstances, most women would never leave their husbands for fear of losing their children and becoming destitute.

But in the mid 1800’s as the early women’s rights movements began to arise, women began to be able to actually get custody of their children, and in some cases even secure property and support from their soon to be ex-husbands.

To be sure many people had good intentions in trying to make divorce easier for women. They reasoned that it was in the best interests of the children to keep them with their mother, and that she would need to be financially supported in caring for them.

But until the 1960’s a man or woman would have to prove cause for divorce (most often infidelity or some other serious issue like abuse or abandonment).

Not only did the new no fault divorce laws help to encourage divorce, but the new war on poverty of the 1960’s also helped to encourage divorce. Single mothers could now apply for government assistance to help with their children.

So even if a woman was married to a man of meager means, she could take the child support from him, and then go to the government to make up the difference through food assistance or other programs. These programs only became more and more expansive throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. It was only in the 1990’s when Bill Clinton was forced by a Republican congress to sign welfare reform that some of the expansion was rolled back a bit and halted.

Thanks to President Obama and our Great Recession, many of these welfare reforms have been softened or done away with all together.

The result is a society in which a woman can leave her husband at any time, for no reason and she can take half his property and force him to pay child support or alimony. If he does not make a lot of money, this same woman can depend on our social safety net to make up the difference.

It should come as no surprise then, that today 70% of divorces are filed by women. We have made it easier for them to do, so they do it. Most divorces do not occur because of infidelity or abuse(which would be Biblical reasons for divorce in my opinion), the vast majority(at least 80% or more) of divorces occur over irreconcilable differences like the couple growing apart, career issues, and disagreements about how to spend money.

In western society, the nuclear family is crumbling, and this is in larger part due to the reason that we subsidize divorce, and make it so easy.

As I have said before many times on this blog, feminism and one of its many children, easy divorce, will eventually come to an end one way or the other. It will either end before western culture collapses because people begin to see a direct correlation between the collapse of marriage and the family, and the financial stresses that broken families put on our society(through crime and poverty), or it will end because we run out of money and the governments collapse.