How the Belief in Unknowable Truth Results in Centralized Power



Because we are discussing the results not only of an individual belief in unknowable truth; but also when a society holds to this shared belief and the effects it has socially, we must look at both briefly.  I hope to provide a brief explanation of why some believe in unknowable truth.  Next, I seek to flesh out the practical out play of this belief on a corporate level because of the inherit presuppositions of that worldview.  The result being, I believe, centralized power.  I will seek to demonstrate how such a presupposition is ironically not only self-refuting in corporate practice of its fundamental presupposition but also intrinsically hypocritical in its goal.


When an individual buys into the philosophy and religion of Secularism of the Existentialism/ Postmodern [1] stream truth gets relegated to the individual.  Truth may or may not exist but knowing whether we have it is impossible.  To provide an example, imagine there is truly an apple in a room filled with observers.  The observers all encounter the same reality but each individual interprets that same experience through their own lens of beliefs, presuppositions, and reasoning faculties.  The result is, you can and may have as many distinct interpretations of that same reality as there are observers in the room.  Whose interpretation is superior, right, or more right?  This type of Postmodernity is presuppositionally trapped in a world of endless human faulty interpretation resulting in a spiral of never truly knowing if she has truly interpreted Truth correctly (I believe the Apostle Paul warned of this kind of teaching to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:7).   Such a perspective or teaching believes that knowing that we know truth is impossibleWe may hold to the right one but we will never know that we do. The only thing an individual can know is there interpretation of reality which may or may not be true.  Truth by nature is authoritative.  And when we believe the only truth we can know is our own interpretation.  We inherently are presupposing we (our interpretation) are a law unto ourselves.  The latin for this is autonomous (auto- self and nomous- law). This results is a pragmatic approach to life.  What works for me is bestThat last sentence now becomes the basis for morality.  And it will have profound implications for society.  This belief system is really nothing new.  It is just ancient paganism dressed in new clothing.  We see God’s interpretation on a similar society in Judges 21:25 which states, “In those days there was no king (read: authority outside the individual) in Israel.  Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Note: Though the records of that time is filled to the brim with sins of all kinds and rebellion against the covenant they had made with God, the narrator states that from the perspective of the individual they were doing what was “right” sadly the basis for their “right” was “his own eyes.”


So what happens socially when a society holds to the presupposition that the only truth I can know is the interpretation I have of reality?  Two possible options are available.

The first is absolute Anarchy.  This is a possible result of a society believing in unknowable truth.  However, it isn’t really appealing to the majority.  For one reason, we are social people.  And so we desire community.  But societies are based on holding to a similar shared value.  Secondly, we know that Anarchy doesn’t really in the end suite us best anyways.  To be pragmatic, it really isn’t sustainable.

So how can an individual live in society while still holding to the premise that the only truth I can know is my interpretation?  Easy, you build a society in which the field is completely and entirely level.  My interpretation is just as valid as yours.  The society builds itself upon the presupposition, “the only truth we know is that we don’t know the truth.”  Those who claim to know public truth, or true Truth as Francis Schaeffer called it are not allowed.  They too must submit to the creed of “all truth claims are equally verifiable.”  In this society the individual’s moral, “what works for me is best” on a social level becomes, “what works for us is best.”

This begs a lot of questions, including how is the society defining or interpreting “works” and “best.”  But because of the shared beliefs this is left up to the majority.  In other words, we have a pure democracy form of government.[2]  That is, a government ruled entirely or solely by the people.  The people are a law unto themselves.  There is no practical higher authority.  A pure democracy believes that the people decide what reality and truth is.  The only thing the individual is accountable to on a social level is the people.

What is incredibly lacking in this government, people, and worldview as a whole is the existence of God.  But then again, in such a worldview, God has no place in social realm.  He is relegated to the individual’s private preferences and beliefs.  And he (if they choose to call such a being that) is only shared by those who also voluntarily choosing to believe that such a being exist in their world.  But note carefully, this god does not truly exist in any realm other than the one created by the person’s interpreted reality. In other words, this god is a god created in man’s image. The result being that this god is powerless over the individual and is subject to the individual.

Such a society, which does not believe in an authoritative God who is LORD over them, cannot allow for such a being to dictate right and wrong.  For it will be argued, “Which God?” or “Whose Interpretation of that God?” etc.  Instead, society builds laws (ethics or morality) upon the shared premise or creed, “what works for us is best.”  In such a society socialism is the most plausible model to “work best” equally for all.  But such a model requires quite a large administration to regulate and implement everything.  Therefore, there will inevitably be a large government. The resources will have to be pooled and then distributed equally.  Thus giving supposed equality to each person. In order to keep the appearance of authority/power in the hands of the people, the government officials will have to be voted in by the majority of people.  The people and their government can choose to make whatever laws they want and then undermine those laws whenever they (the people) choose with no accountability.  For there is no authority above the people in such a worldview.  The power will thus be centralized to the government.


Ironically, the beginning premise moral “what works for me is best” presupposed originally by the individuals within the society can no longer be shared logically corporately.  For, when we define truth limited to the individual’s interpretation and then allow for the majority to exercise another law outside the individual we undermine the first.  The majority may be pleased as was the case in Nazi Germany with even morally killing those who are a threat to such a society.  But it is done at the expense at undermining the minority and the individuals who make up that minority.  In other words, a pure democracy quickly becomes a mob where the goal is no longer to discern the truth and submit to it but rather to create for society some arbitrary Utopia defined by the mob. Another irony is that, often times socialism today is touted as the best system for the weak and minority groups.  But at best it is really left up to the majority’s perception of the minority’s needs and desires.  And at worst, a wonderful structure in which to silence and cripple minorities into conforming to the mob’s perceived reality and morality.  In the end, we see how such a worldview is not only self-refuting, it simply doesn’t work.  Therefore, in the end we can know that such a presupposition is a false interpretation that no society should build itself upon.  For as our LORD and Savior taught, we want to build our house upon the rock.  How much more so ought we to build society upon the Rock.

[1] A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

[2] I use the term pure democracy to distinguish between republics and other governments  which may have a democratic voting structure.


What Is the Relationship and Role of the Old Testament Law in the Life of A New Covenant Christian?

Well the Black Sheep Fellowship was at it again friends.  The church I pastor at hosted another Colloquium only this time to discuss the role and relationship of the OT Law on the NT believer.

I presented Theonomic position (though I myself am not quite convinced of this perspective) and my dear friend Ryan Franchuk presented the New Covenant perspective.  We had someone present the Traditional Reformed perspective however, he was not given time to prepare and so he requested for it not to be recorded.  All in all the discussion and fellowship was rich, intense, edifying, and even fun.  I hope you enjoy these videos as much as we enjoyed the event.

The Theonomic Perspective

The New Covenant Perspective


Q & A on Politics and Abortions

Q and A

Several months ago a friend of mine of a completely different tribe politically, religiously, and philosophically asked me the following questions on abortion.  Here were my answers.



  1. If you belong to a party that at its core believes that all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and seeks to a world where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power, how can you also seek to limit by law an individual’s right for an abortion? By saying that it is wrong because of a religious tenet, aren’t you contradicting your own beliefs about authoritarian powers and liberty?

I do believe the individual has been given by His creator the right to live and pursuit of happiness.  Although, God is the only sovereign being that exist.  And He has entrusted all people with freedom and responsibility.  They will ultimately be held accountable to the Sovereign One on that Great Day.  Concerning governing before that day, all forms of violent crimes undermine the very principle and so are to be punished fairly and appropriately.  The issue of abortion is an example of this. 

2. There are a few state legislatures that have tried to sanction the killing of abortion providers by claiming it is “justifiable homicide.” Where in the Bible does Jesus condone killing people?

Jesus affirms the Old Testament as being God’s Word and authoritative. So we need not hear it directly from Jesus’ mouth to know whether he would hold to such a thing because he believed every word of the Hebrews Scriptures.  As to whether there is ever a justifiable reason to kill, that is tough.  War involves this act, and many Christians who study the Bible have come a conclusion known as “Just War Theory.”  I think many of the same principles under that theory are played out for CP (capital punishment).  I am not a died hard fan of CP because of the unreliability of our court systems.  But I am not completely against it.  It is still a topic for me to study.

3. Earlier this year in the Oklahoma state legislature, a bill was proposed to protect the rights of a fetus at every stage of development, including the protection of an unfertilized egg. This would ban most forms of birth control. There was an amendment proposed, and later withdrawn, that would outlaw masturbation, oral sex, or any other action where a man’s ejaculate was not used with the intent of creating a child. Would you support such an amendment? The Bible does prohibit “spilling one’s seed on the ground” and actions that don’t adhere to going forth and multiplying? Would it not be a double standard to protect the unfertilized egg but not the unsuccessful sperm?

Point made.  Although there is so much debate even within Christendom about the passage on “spilling one’s seed on the ground” as to why the punishment was given by God, most do not think it was for the act but in why he was doing it and what the consequences were.  You can read about it in Genesis 38?  I don’t think this issue is as easy.  I personally would not pass such a bill.  Practically I do not know how it could be implemented.  Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish the difference between crimes and sins.  All crimes are sins but not all sins are crimes.  A crime is a sin that directly affects and harms the public.  The sin of envy is not a crime but stealing is.  The state is to enforce the law concerning crimes, not sins.

4. Sister Joan Chittister, a Catholic nun, recently said, “…just because you are anti-abortion that does not make you pro-life. In fact, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born and not a fed child, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because, you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life, that is pro-birth.” But your policies go towards cutting any programs that might help the less fortunate. If you were a poor person with little hope of being able to feed, clothe, or provide shelter, why would you bring a child into the world? Even if you give that child up for adoption, what hope might it have in a world where social services are non-existent?

I believe individuals ought to use all the resources to help the poor, weak, and needy.  Forcing people is another issue.  Robbing people of their wages to give to someone else is not what Jesus encouraged.  Jesus focused on the heart of people and sought to expose the selfish nature in all of us and the need to be born again so that we can be freed to serve, love, and give.  It would be wrong for me to rob a man because I needed the money.  The government is no different when it robs people of their wages because someone else needs it.  God is judge and he will judge the actions and the motives of people and how they used what was entrusted to them to serve, love, and give.  Should my son love his sister?  YES!  Can I make him? NO!  Can I influence him and teach him to do so?  Yes.  So it is with giving and many other good and charitable acts to be done. Again, selfishness is a sin but it does not follow that it is a crime.  Nor does complicating the issue by committing a crime (stealing ones wages) in order to address the effects of ones sin a wise or profitable solution.

5. In a world where abortion(s) were illegal, mothers that did not have the emotional or financial wherewithal to care for a child with Down Syndrome would be forced to give birth and probably give the child up for adoption. Given the low numbers for adoption in the US, the ease in which adoptive parents can go overseas to adopt children with lesser needs, and the fatality rate for un-adopted DS babies, when can we expect YOU and YOUR family members to start adopting American children with Down Syndrome? Crack babies, babies with AIDS, any severe condition that can be detected before birth will do. Because very few prominent conservatives seem to be taking care of these kids that would otherwise be wards of the state. Would you be for a bill that required families with means and self-identified as pro-life to adopt special needs children?

I will!  We have been saving to adopt for several years now.  We are well aware of the need and hope to help.  I know many others (friends, and also people within our church) who want to do likewise.  Our church is currently funding an orphanage.  Built them a home, bought beds, a television to watch soccer, and so on. For Christmas my family and extended family didn’t buy gifts for each other but rather gave gifts to the orphans in their name.  You would be surprised the people eager to help and serve in the ways they are able.  The problem is not so much a willingness to adopt children with Christians as it is how difficult the government has made it to adopt.

6. The Bible commands us to go forth and multiply. Should employers pay for expensive fertility treatments as part of their medical benefits based on their religious stances?

No.  The mandate does not condemn involuntary infertility.  The mandate encourages a desire to promote, protect, and preserve life.  Again, forcing a company, a person, or organization to spend their wages or profits a certain way is a form of robbing.

7. Studies have shown a reduction in crime, infanticide, teen age drug use, and teen age childbearing consistent with the theory that abortion will reduce other social ills. Murder rates in minority communities a decade after abortion was legalized were lower by significant margins than in previous generations. If you rail against all of these social ills, why would you not favor abortion? Do you prefer locking up blacks and Latinos or are you hoping that they will just kill each other?

I do not favor abortion.  And I don’t want them to kill each other after birth either.  Where is the option for not killing each other off in the womb or out of the womb?  Because that would be my choice.  The end does not justify the means.  America could drop an a-bomb on the Middle East and eliminate many future wars and deaths and sickness.  But that wouldn’t make it right.

8. You say that abortion is murder under any circumstance. Rape, incest, safety of the mother, there is no situation in which abortion would be justified. What if your daughter were forcibly raped in a grotesque fashion by a close relative and carrying this child to term would certainly kill your daughter? On top of that an ultrasound showed that the baby had cloven hooves for feet, horns on its head, and a forked tongue? Plus, religious leaders of many denominations suggested that if the baby were born that it would mean the triumph of Satan on Earth. Would you allow your daughter to get an abortion then?

How old is my daughter?  Is she still under my care?  Or is she an adult that she is to make her own choices and bear the consequences of them?  I will always love my daughter, despite what she does.  In any case, I would never encourage her to kill a baby.  I believe in a God that is sovereign over all things.  I am not, nor am I to make decisions that a being with such knowledge and power would possess.  I am responsible to obey all that God has revealed and trust Him with the results.  I am not commanded to kill the devil.  I am commanded to preserve and protect life.  Not to play the pretend prophet game and act upon those supposed predictions.  On a lighter note, you know a lot of strange Christian leaders.
9. Most Christians believe that God is loving and merciful towards those that have not done him any harm. What does God do to the souls of aborted babies? Do they go to Hell with the aborting parents? Does not seem very merciful. Do they get put back in the soul hopper and eventually get born? Or do they go straight to Heaven since it was not their fault they got aborted (since everything happens due to God’s plan) and wouldn’t that be the best thing not having to suffer on Earth with parents that did not want them? Seriously though, isn’t the fate of the parents up to God and not religious fanatics that want to impose their will on others?

Christians do not believe anyone goes to heaven because they are innocent of sin and guilt.  All are sinners guilty and sinners from conception.  That is what makes Christianity different than all other religions.  No matter the religion, all teach that we must find or earn our way to heaven.  Christians teach that God brings heaven to us.  I don’t know where babies go that get aborted.  God has not spoken in the Bible on such things.  Where He is silent, I must be silent.  I don’t believe in a soul hopper.  Yes in the end God will judge and do what is right.  But Christians are charged to limit the wickedness and seek that which was lost in the beginning.  (Not sure if I understood your question, hope that answers it though)
10. If you could go back in time and were only able to convince the mother of (Barack Obama, Osama bin Laden. Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, or the guy that figured out how to give abortions) to have an abortion, what would you do?

Teach her and her son about Jesus Christ. 🙂




For future “Q & A” go to the contact me tab and e-mail me your questions.  I will keep your identity private while seeking ym best to answer your questions to the best of my ability supplied by the grace and wisdom provided by God.

Voddie Baucham Publically Endorses Ron Paul

Here’s is the complete statement from Rev. Voddie Baucham Jr.:

Voddie, because I have a great respect for you and your opinion I would really like to know why you are voting for Ron Paul ? I have not liked some of the things I have heard him say and I am wondering if I missed something?” -Pamela Wolfe (via Facebook Fan Page)

Since posting a passing comment on my Facebook fan page about Ron Paul, I have been inundated with questions and concerns about my support of the Texas Congressman in the current Republican Primary race. In one of my many political posts (frequently, I post videos, news articles, etc., in an effort to show the importance and influence of worldview), I simply stated that I voted for Dr. Paul in the last election, and planned to vote for him again.

The result was hundreds of comments; more than any other post I’ve ever submitted. Most of the comments were positive. However, several were extremely negative. Some vowed never to follow, or support my ministry any further, while others simply communicated their dismay. Still others, like today’s questioner, just asked honest questions. As a result, I’ve decided to explain my position, and this seemed like the best place to do it.

Let me say ahead of time that I do not believe that politics will save America. Nor do I believe there are any perfect candidates. There never have been, and there never will be. Moreover, it is not my goal to answer every objection to the Paul candidacy as I know that there are those who, for various reasons, will not be persuaded, and more importantly, that’s not my job. My goal here is to offer insight in to my own reasoning as I wade through another political season and make a personal choice.

I. Ron Paul is a Christian Conservative

While I am not looking for a “Pastor-in-Chief,” it is important to me that the man for whom I cast my vote be a Christian, if at all possible. And though I recognize that there is not always a clear Christian choice (i.e., the 2008 election), I agree with Chief Justice John Jay who wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”[1] For indeed, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.”[2] John Witherspoon concurs: “Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to [public office] are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly.”[3] I think we are seeing this on display right now.[4]

My desire is not to see a president who will usurp the authority, responsibilities, or privileges of the Church. However, I do not wish to see those things hindered either. I also want to know that the foundational ideology motivating a man’s decisions is biblical. I know it will not always mirror my own, but I trust God’s word, and appreciate those who look to it for aid in making decisions. To that end, I support Dr. Paul because he is not just a conservative, but a Christian Conservative.

Dr. Paul does not beat his Christian faith like a drum in his public/political life. Unfortunately, that is off-putting for the “Christian Right”. However, in a world full of ‘posturing’ in an effort to win over evangelicals, I find Paul’s public demeanor refreshing. And it is not as though he is a ‘closet Christian,’ either. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” wrote Paul on his Web site.[5] I have also had the privilege of talking with both him, and one of his five children about his faith and how it influences his policy positions.

Nevertheless, the more important aspect is the fact that this Southern Baptist (raised Lutheran) is a regular church attender. What would motivate a man to attend church, but not beat a drum about it in an effort to win over evangelicals in an age when political figures play at Christianity (while living totally contradictory lives, and holding heterodox beliefs) in order to assuage the fears of the Christian Right? Having met and talked to Dr. Paul, I would say it is authenticity, and humility more than anything else. He wants “to avoid any appearance of exploiting [his faith] for political gain.”[6]

II. Ron Paul is a Constitutional Conservative

Not only is Ron Paul a Christian Conservative; he is also a Constitutional Conservative. He holds himself accountable to the Constitution of the United States, even when it means he has to vote against legislation that may be otherwise beneficial. This has cost him on numerous occasions as people use the “Ron Paul voted against so-and-so” tactic to paint a caricature of him and play “gotcha” politics.
This is actually an important quality in a President. I don’t want a man in the White House making decisions based on what “feels” right. I’m not looking for a conscientious King; I want a Chief Executive. I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that. Especially in several crucial areas facing our Republic, like money, war, States’ Rights, and foreign policy, for example.

Constitutional Money

I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of money. He is the only candidate consistently to confront the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not federal, has no reserves, and is not a bank), and address the issue of fiat currency (a.k.a. unjust weights and measures; Lev 19:36; Prov 16:11), which debases the dollar, manipulates business cycles, creates inflation, and always benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. And he talks about the issue in just those terms.

Congressman Paul is also the only candidate who has a budget that will cut a TRILLION DOLLARS in spending in year one.[7] He is the only candidate who has committed to defund and eliminate expensive, unconstitutional agencies. This is crucial for a country headed for an economic cliff. Our debt is larger than our GDP and we simply must address it NOW (Luke 14:28)! This is arguably the most important issue we face, and while others want to tinker with the status quo, Dr. Paul wants to do the hard thing; the right thing; the biblical thing; the constitutional thing.

Constitutional War

I support Ron Paul because he is a military veteran (yup… he refuses to beat that drum too, which is why you may not have known that little tidbit). And though I do not believe it is necessary for a man to have served in the military for him to serve as President, the fact that Congressman Paul knows and hates war lends credibility to his desire and commitment to ending the wars and bringing our troops home. Moreover, he has a constitutional understanding of war (only Congress can send us to war), and a Christian commitment to historic Just War Theory (rooted in the Sixth Commandment… HIS WORDS).[8] He, unlike other candidates, can be counted on not to commit to acts of war without congressional authority (i.e., unilaterally deciding to bomb a sovereign nation if they advance their weapons technology in a region several thousand miles away from the U.S., under the watchful eye of a nation with over 300 nukes who can stop them in a heartbeat… but I digress).

There is a reason Dr. Paul has received more support from members of the military than all other candidates (Republican and Democrat) COMBINED! The top three employers of Ron Paul’s donors are the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively. Dr. Paul will not use our military to hunt down and overthrow heads of state without Congressional authority (i.e., Libya), kill American citizens without warrant,[9] detain citizens indefinitely without benefit of a trial,[10] or chase warlords in central Africa.[11] When it comes to war, Dr. Paul understands that, “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.” (Proverbs 26:17)

Constitutional States’ Rights

I support Ron Paul because he not only understands, but believes in the Tenth Amendment. I know many Christians have been scared off by the “Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs, gay marriage, and abortion” rhetoric. However, looking beyond the rhetoric reveals Paul’s true constitutional conservatism (and biblical understanding of jurisdiction). He has personal convictions, but those will not be allowed to steer him away from his constitutional oath. The presidency, and the Federal Government have limits.

The President is not “Pastor in Chief.” It is not the President’s job (or the job of the Federal Government) to set such policies. The “War on Drugs,” for example, has been a monumental, unconstitutional, fiscal failure (to the tune of more than $3 BILLION)![12] The Federal Government must be held within the confines of its enumerated powers. This is important for Christians because we will not always have people in the White House with whom we agree (in fact, politicians will always let us down). What happens when we send a man to the White House with the express purpose of “changing the moral standards” of America in our favor, then, down the line we have a president who uses the same un-cheked powers to promote moral standards with which we disagree? How’s that workin’ for ya’?

But what about the moral issues to which we, as Christians, must speak? First, we must speak to them at the local level. I have no right to look to Washington, D.C. for remedies when I am not preaching on Mars Hill at every opportunity. The Roe v. Wade, for example, started in Texas; not D.C.. Furthermore, there is not a single institution more prolific in the spread of moral decay than the government education system, and Ron Paul is the only man who plans to get the federal government out of that business by ending the (unconstitutional) Department of Education IMMEDIATELY (Luke 6:40).

Beyond that, if there are issues we wish to address on a federal level, we have a federal remedy, and it is not the election of a President; it is the amendment process. This is less favorable to those who do not wish to do the hard work of changing hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas. However, the alternative is a quasi-monarchy (or oligarchy) that changes with the wind, and a view of the presidency that is both unbiblical and unconstitutional.

Constitutional Foreign Policy

I support Ron Paul because he has a constitutional view of foreign policy. Ironically, our foreign policy has been so unconstitutional for so long that many people recoil at the idea of getting it back in line. Moreover, the semantic game Paul’s opponents play (using “isolationism” as opposed to “non-intervention” to define his position) doesn’t help. For most Christians, this is where they believe I’ve left the reservation. They may not say, “We have to be the world’s police force,” but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “Do you know his position on Israel?” “Surely you can’t support a man who doesn’t support Israel!”

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Ron Paul does support Israel. It is our current foreign policy that does not support Israel! However, there is a deeper issue here. There is a sort of misplaced Dispensationalism that governs people’s sentimental attitude toward Israel. Let me state clearly that I do not believe the Bible demands that the U.S. support Israel. I do, however, believe that it is wise to do so for geopolitical reasons. To do so for theological reasons, I believe, is actually misguided, and quite dangerous. Nevertheless, Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East, and that is important.

But there’s a more important question: “What does it mean to “support” Israel?” Does it mean that Israel remains God’s “Chosen People,” and we must stand with them in anticipation of the coming Armageddon? Is the President to act as “Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces” and “Supreme Defender of Israel”? Or are we simply to make sure the foreign aid dollars don’t stop flowing? Here are a few things I took into to consideration in evaluating Congressman Paul’s foreign policy.

  1. Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East… BY A LONG SHOT! In fact, Israel could potentially defeat all the other military powers in the Middle East simultaneously if they had to.
  2. We not only give money to Israel; we give money to their enemies as well. That is not supporting Israel! That is using money to buy influence in a region thousands of miles away from us in the name of oil, when we happen to have the largest repository of oil on planet earth right here in the US, but refuse to go and get it (in the name of Earth-worshipping environmentalism)!
  3. Israel is a sovereign nation, and we have no right to treat her like a child. Our foreign aid has been a tool used to influence Israel’s domestic policy for far too long. If we are their friends, we should allow them to exercise their sovereignty without our interference, and certainly without our condemnation. Who do we think we are? No, I disagree with my Christian brothers and sisters who think a country who supports Israel’s enemies, interferes with Israel’s domestic policy, condemn’s Israel in efforts to keep ties with oil-rich countries in the region, and helps to destabilize and radicalize one of Israel’s historic foes lurking on her southern boarder is engaging in a foreign policy that supports Israel.

III. Ron Paul is a Consistent Conservative

Finally, I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened;[13] and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!

Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.


[1] The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, 4:393 [to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816].

[2] The Papers of James Madison, Robert Rutland, ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, Vol. 8, pp. 299, 304, June 20, 1785; cited in Barton, p. 120.

[3] Witherspoon, Works, Edinburgh, J. Ogle, 1815, IV:266-67, from “A Sermon Delivered at a Public Thanksgiving after Peace.”

[4] I realize that President Obama professes Christianity. However, his theology, as well as the theology of the church he attended for more than twenty years is heterodox (committed to neo-marxist, Black Liberation Theology. There is little in his worldview that commends his profession of faith.


[6] Ibid.








America a Muslim Country?

According to this source President Obama has gone on the record in stating that he believed America could be considered (past tense mind you) “one of the largest Muslim countries.” This is interesting.  America should not and cannot be considered a “Christian Nation” according to our President but he has no problem considering it a Muslim one?  Is this a double standard?  I believe so.  Of course one could argue he doesn’t mean by what the nation stands for but merely by the population of Muslims in the country.  But this is what I mean by a double standard.  Because, should the same standard be applied to American concerning Christianity, he would have to say that America is indeed a Christian nation.

With the recent emergence of President Obama’s Muslim roots, it seems America has been duped by their television sets.  Now I am not saying whether he is a Muslim or not.  I will say this.  The church he was attending and the pastor he was being discipled under was in no way a Christian church.  They were a ethnocentric church who denied the trinity and gospel.  My opinion is President Obama is your typical American who is truly uncommitted to any religious system.  He may be a very religious person like many of the people I witness to in downtown chi-town.  But this is more often than not some religion each individual creates that is safe and comforting to them.

The President has also now announced the month of June 2009 as, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.” We are still waiting to hear of the month dedicated to monogamous marriage.  However, those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender may be to bigoted to allow that to ever happen.  There are now 6 states that allow homosexuals to marry.  However, this has caused an uproar in the state of New Hampshire where the polygamist has cried out that if homosexuals are accepted why not them?

All this has reminded me of the book of Judges.  Now I know that America is not Israel.  So please do not misunderstand me.  However, God’s laws and decrees have not changed.  They cannot.  And what we are seeing happening in America is what happens to every culture that does not fear God.

Men do what is right in their own eyes.

I used to think that was saying a really bad thing about those people because they were trying to be evil by doing what was opposed to God’s law.  However, I have recently seen this verse in a completely different light in the last few months.

When it says, “that men did what was right in their own eyes,” it means that the people were legitimately trying to do what was “right.”  That’s not where the problem was.  The problem lies in where they allow their standard to be for discerning what is right.  That is “in their own eyes.”  Oppose to doing what was right in “God’s eyes.”

You see, the large majority of people, I believe, are more often than not trying to do what they believe is right.  The real problem is men know not what is right (Ephesians 4:17-18).  Jeremiah says that men’s hearts are “desperately sick.” And finally that men hate God (Romans 8:7).  So the only answer to their problem is the one thing they hate most.  And so, they are doomed to never know.  For they don’t know the answer and are unwilling to know it!


We tell them.  They may very well hate us for it.  But if we truly care for them and love them, we will tell them.  And please beloved brothers and sisters don’t be shocked when they hate you.  Because they hated Christ as well.  Jesus told us for this reason they will also hate us.

One more thing.  if your purpose for telling them is based upon a love for man rather than a love for man being fueled by a love for God’s glory, you are guilty of humanism.  But I’ll leave that to another post 🙂