Paul's Passing Thoughts

It should be no surprise in the present political climate that many are calling for the banning of the Confederate Flag and all Confederate monuments. Why? Well, but of course, these all symbolize racism. NASCAR driver Darrell “Bubba” Wallace Jr. is even calling for NASCAR to ban the Confederate flag from all NASCAR events and promotions. The U.S. Navy is seeking a ban as well.

So, let’s think about this. If the Confederate flag represents racism, and the Northern states defeated the Confederacy in the civil war, why are people burning Old Glory? Answer: eliminating the Confederate flag from memory results in the question no longer being begged; eliminating the Confederate flag is an important first step in eliminating the Union flag and what it symbolizes. They are seeking to eliminate the historical antithesis that defines what America is all about: freedom and justice for ALL.

The real beef is with the concept of self-rule despised by Socialism. The people decide what liberty and justice for all means, not the government. Americans, especially young ones always looking for something new (not that Socialism is new) are easily deceived by such notions. Why? They think Socialism will just tweak some negative things existing in our representative republic. Per human history over and over and over again, the useful idiots that partake in the transformation are shocked by the results. The transformation of America would not result in a better America, but the elimination of the American idea altogether. Trust me, liberty and justice for all according to America is much different than liberty and justice for all according to Socialism.

In the quest to eliminate American self-rule, it is critical that American history is eliminated. The Confederate flag is an important reminder that America fought a brutal war to end slavery. The Obamas, as a family, have been very vocal regarding their disdain for the Confederate flag. Malia Obama ripped the Confederate flag from a protestor’s hands in Chicago. Full stop: on the other hand, at a ceremony where the American (Union) flag was a central focus, Michelle Obama was caught whispering to Barak, “All this for a damn flag.”

Question: if liberals successfully transform this country, do you really think there will be no flag? At least the old liberals of the 60s were honest and waved communist flags; we are now pining away in wishing for their return.

Here is the thing about chaos that has been foisted upon the American public recently: it skews the obvious. Um, remember the freedom of speech thing? Now we have the epitome of middle American patriotism like Bubba Wallace calling for the elimination of the Confederate flag? Really, Malia Obama ripping the Confederate flag from the hands of a protestor should say all that needs to be said. With leftists, any speech they disagree with is the proverbial yelling of “fire!” in a movie theater. It is the dangerous act of thinking mankind can be free without destroying the world.

With all of this said, I believe, like many, that the Confederate flag has come to represent American audacity and boldness rather than slavery.  Secession from the Union was a bold move border-lining on the berserk. Keep in mind, with many Southerners, slavery wasn’t the issue per se, but the idea that the government was trying to tell them how they could live their lives. Be sure of this: that is closer to why the Confederate flag is prevalent in venues like NASCAR. It’s the idea of courage and the freedom to drive 185 MPH while 3 feet  away from another car if I damn-well want to. Bubba needs to sit back and drink a few cold ones while thinking about these things.

I highly recommend a Confederate flag movement. If it survives, it’s a line of defense against what the leftists are really seeking to destroy; Old Glory, and everything it represents.

But meanwhile, we could use some good old fashioned American defiance that the Confederate flag represents rather than the submission to leftist ideas being sought.

paul

By Paul M. Dohse, STNA/MA-C, TANC Publishing author. 

Some years ago, it wasn’t hard to see where the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church of America were going to end up. Susan and I were invited to a dinner party in 2011, and several employees of the nearby Cedarville University (a General Association of Regular Baptist Churches institution) were in attendance. They were discussing their surprise that several professors at the university had voted for Barak Obama in 2008. Susan and I were not the least bit surprised. Though the title of this post only mentions the SBC and the PCA, several other evangelical denominations now in league with them are officially driven by leftist ideology. That is, far left ideology.

Yesterday, I got a good taste of that. Though people like to paint me as an agitator who likes to argue, in reality, I am too busy in the healthcare business to do much agitating, especially with a pandemic going on. What I have always done, in reality, is to incite conversation in order to find out what people are thinking. Also, arguing is a very important part of our ministry because it is how we test our hypotheses on many religious, philosophical, political, and historical issues. If we find a good argument, it is time to reconsider our prior thoughts.

For sure, we have picked a lot of fights over our justification by new birth gospel in order to find flaws in our understanding. This also teaches us how to better articulate our position. I know, it would be better to make a distinction between “discussion,” and “arguing,” but because of the way leftists wear their hearts on their sleeves and every other part of their body, that’s difficult.

Per the usual, here at TANC Ministries, the least common denominator that we focus on is the ability/inability of mankind. Those who understand man is able, will see government as something that should serve the people. That is, individualism versus collectivism. Those who hold to the inability of mankind, will see government authority as its savior. Mankind, according to this view, is totally depraved and God uses government to restrain mankind’s evil. This is also coupled with predeterminism which grants a pass to evil regimes; they wouldn’t be in power unless God wanted them to be in power, so, suck it up buttercup. We hear this ideology from the pulpits constantly.

Individualists are seen as those who endorse a public policy likened to allowing a child to play with a loaded gun. Collectivists see individualists as a threat to their very well-being because they diminish the role of government. How far does this go? Until as recent as the 1940s, emperors were seen as deity in human bodies. That’s how far it goes. Hence, as an individualist, you don’t merely have ideological differences with a collectivist, you are seen as a threat to their very survival.

This is where church began. Until America came along, church was always a church-state. Americanism confused what church is for the better. Because of this confusion caused by the conflation of Americanism and the collectivist church, the church in America, for a long period of time, was a force for good.

However, due to the Neo-Calvinist movement (1970-present), the church (350AD-present) is going back to its church-state roots. Understand, this makes hard left collectivism that sees government as savior one and the same with church-state ideology.

Those who are of the hybrid version of church have hard decisions to make; there is no way to save the present-day church from its collectivist roots. They (the hybrid version) will go in another direction, or become a party to the ideology. They will either join them, or be defeated by them. You cannot reason with fear, and this is a fear of individualism ruling the world; this is terror of self-rule. Ironically, the same people will say, “amen” to the idea that every person will stand before God individually, but their logic screams out the idea that their salvation hinges on obeying any and every authority because it is supposedly ordained by God. The Nazis themselves stood on this very ideology; that they were only following orders from those ordained by God. “You are not suggesting that every man do what is fit in their own eyes are you?” It’s a false either/or choice; chaos or order. Individualism or collectivism.

The fact that most churches have adopted this leftist ideology was on full display yesterday, and I took the opportunity to carefully document it. This isn’t the friendly SBC liberalism that got Jimmy Carter elected in the 70s, this is full throttle leftist ideology that despises humanity. The sugar coated church terminology is the doctrine of, “total depravity,” but do not be deceived, it is naked Marxism dressed up for church.

It all started when I took note of a post submitted on Facebook by a local educator. The post was shared by someone on my friends list who is well connected with the local church culture. The vast majority of people on her list, over 500, would be everyday church-goers. During the discourse that followed, I referred to them as church-goers and it was never denied. And note, this group would be considered of the evangelical sort, or conservative by cultural standards. The experience that followed coincides with trends this ministry has been watching and researching since 2009.

Before I begin to make my case, let me state the thesis. With Marxism, there are relevant human beings and irrelevant human beings. You either believe in the total inability of mankind, or you don’t. If you don’t, the sum and substance of your life is completely irrelevant. The Christian Marxist would use the Bible to state it this way: “All of the works of man are as filthy rags.” In that Bible verse, the Hebrew word used represents menstrual  rags.

If you believe in the total inability of man, your works are still filthy rags, but your total worth is judged by what you believe about humanity resulting in total obedience to the state. With Christian Marxism, you can replace “state” with “church,” and when Christian Marxism has fully bloomed, they are one and the same. This Marxist mentality has been brewing for some time in the mainline church. A church leader I used to serve with, once quoted Edmund Burke in saying, “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Someone rightly evaluated the quote this way: “Edmund Burke held the fundamental assumption about human existence, and this quote ultimately that the nature of man requires that man can only be governed by a totalitarian government, that the function of government is human restraint.”

This translates into how the purpose of an individual is defined. The purpose of EVERY individual is to contribute to the state for the collective good as determined by the state. Of course the government has a right to tax you into poverty, it knows best how your money should be used for the “collective good.”  If the government didn’t take your money from you, you would only use it for yourself. Man must be ruled. He is inherently evil and must be saved from himself.

Purpose now defines worth. The worth of an individual is now determined by the individual’s ability to contribute to the state, and subsequently, the state’s definition of what the collective good is. Old people have little ability to contribute to the state; in fact, they are a burden on the state. Old people cost the state money and contribute nothing. Supposedly.

Though many of today’s evangelicals would deny the church doctrine of total depravity intellectually, they function according to its dictates. At the very least, they proclaim Total Depravity Light; “We are all just sinners saved by grace.”

The end-game of Marxist politics is the total submission of individuals to the state. Marxism uses different narratives cloaked in moralism to obtain that goal. Marxism’s worst nightmare is the idea that the world should be ruled by the collective good of individuals, and frankly, that’s the church’s worst nightmare as well because the doctrine of total depravity and Marxism are mutably inclusive. The church’s present participation in leftist narratives is a march towards the same end-game, and more and more, wittingly rather than unwittingly.

The aforementioned post shared by the person on my Facebook friends list was the propagation of one of the most recent Marxist “moral” narratives meant to move America closer to the Marxist end-game; socialism, the economic and political expression of collectivism. I responded to it. Shortly after my lengthy response, the author deleted the post, or at least made the post private. Though you cannot read his original post, you can get the gist of it from my response:

I would like to send a gracious challenge to your post. I think an African-American pastor said it best: “It’s not the skin, it’s the sin.” I think when we focus on symptoms, we end up saying things that can be misunderstood. Certainly, I don’t think you really mean to convey to children you are charged with educating that the American people have not changed in regard to race relations. Who is the “WE”? In context, it strongly implies the American people in general. That wouldn’t be truthful American history, and you are an educator. America has not only been the greatest force for good in human history other than God Himself, but no country has ever done more for people of color.

I recently did my own personal research on the Civil War; it was totally about slavery and little else. Hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers died in that war and it was a volunteer army. Emancipated slaves volunteered also, about 20,000. The first casualties of the Civil Rights movement were two white men and a black friend murdered by law-enforcement officers. Who are the “WE” you are talking about? Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I do not think you mean to insinuate to our children that America is a racist country.

Wouldn’t it be better to say that what happened does not represent the American idea which has moved this country into demonstrable CHANGE in the past 100 years? What exactly needs to CHANGE? Along with your mention of this not being anything “new,” the whole context of your statement strongly implies that America is a racist country that refuses to come to grips with racist underpinnings. That’s just not true, and hardly a message you want to send to our children. Nothing is new about racism, and unfortunately, it will also always be present in every country, but racism doesn’t define America, and in regard to racism, America has changed.

So, again, I ask, when you write, “WE. MUST. CHANGE,” what exactly are you talking about?

Of course, his post regarded the recent death of George Floyd while in police custody. My response was tentative, and strived to ask a fair question. Instead of answering, he either pulled down the post or blocked me from seeing it.

However, the discussion that ensued on the link is relevant because this group of people represent run-of-the-mill church-going evangelicals. The discussion reflected the fact that church, for the most part, has adopted the leftist view of American systemic racism.

The first response to my comment follows:

It absolutely is a sin problem, and in cases like this the sin is manifested in racism. This friend has 4 children- three are by birth, one was adopted from Haiti. What it boils down to is the fact that they don’t have to worry as much that their white children will be perceived (whether consciously or subconsciously) as hooligans as they do about their adopted son. I’m not here to argue, these people are living this, and it is not uncommon.

So, another question. If America is such a systemic racist cesspool, why would you adopt a child of color and bring him here? Other than, of course, that adopting black children is a favorite method of virtue signaling by liberal white people. It also begs another question: why not support the adoption of children to countries that are not racist and have more opportunity for upward mobility than the U.S.? I think we know the answer to that, don’t we? Another point can be made regarding the mindlessness of contemporary Christians: while they boast about American church missions being the saving grace of the world, on the other hand, America is supposedly a systemic racist cesspool. But, by all means, financially support American missions with all of your heart, mind, and soul.

However, the sharpest point of the accusation follows: “whether consciously or subconsciously.” What is being said here? If you are white, you either know you are racist, or you are racist “subconsciously.” In other words, white=racist, period. This goes hand in glove with the total depravity doctrine of the church. Every living human being is not as guilty of every sin under the sun as they can be, but guilty of every sin to some degree or another. This view was further supported by other church-goers commenting on the link:

Have you ever once locked your car door because a person of color was coming nearby? Or scooted a little farther over in the elevator than normal? Or avoided making eye contact just because they looked like a thug to you? Based on what I’m reading from your paragraphs of research it looks like you only know of the bones white people have thrown to keep the violence down. This has been hundreds and hundreds of years in the making. The system is corrupt to the bone, even though it looks like we’ve made progress.

This view of the white race should make chills run up and down your spine. And of course, it is a completely illogical assessment of American history. No other country in history gave 700,000 white lives in a war to free black slaves. America is an idea that progresses through the ages, and no one said there wasn’t going to be any rotten apples in the basket. But, before we move on, let’s refresh the thesis of this post; the narrative is illogical because it is a means to an end. The real bone of contention is the American idea of self-rule and the shared disdain for that principle among those that despise humanity. Of course, church-goers will deny that they hate humanity while propagating the doctrine of total depravity.

And, just like the leftists, if you reject the narrative, that is proof that you are racist and the sum and substance of your life is irrelevant. When one church-going evangelical participant on the link seized upon the fact that I was in nursing, he immediately surmised that no racist should be involved in nursing, and subsequently promised to call my place of employment to get me fired:

So, let’s think about this. He has no idea what kind of aide I am, and to what degree I might be a blessing to a number of elderly people needing care. It’s completely irrelevant because I don’t know I am inherently racist because I am white, and therefore, I shouldn’t be in nursing. Notice that he also got a couple of thumbs up from those participating. Scared yet? Well, you should be. This leftist mentality now dominates the evangelical church. Note also that what President Trump has accomplished for Americans, white and black, but black in particular, is completely irrelevant. Why? Because he is a proponent of self-rule. The systemic racist narrative is just a means to an end in order to divide our society. It’s a divide and conquer strategy.

And ironically, we must now say that since church has adopted this narrative, that church is just as much a threat to elderly care as socialism; it’s the same narrative. I have written many articles on how socialism and elder care are mutually exclusive. Socialist ideology and elder care are antithetical because the elderly, for the most part, are unable to contribute to the collective good as determined by the state. The narrative of systemic American racism is a socialist narrative meant to destroy this country and the like narrative is now embraced by the church. In fact…

Any questions? Again, let this sink in. In the present rioting taking place, several black businesses have been burned to the ground, and at least one black police officer shot dead. This is a run-of-the-mill church-goer talking here, yet, it’s the same ideology. It is also obvious that this isn’t really about racism to begin with; it’s the propagation of class warfare used by every communist regime that has ever come down the pike.

I can’t say I didn’t see all of this coming. The church itself was founded on the idea that it had to be in bed with the state for significance in the world order of things. America confused the church for the better with ideas of personal liberty and freedom of conscience. The New Calvinist movement that began in 1970 is moving the church back to its despotic roots.

The church is now a party to the same ideology that is an imminent threat to the care of our elderly. Its legacy of drowning innocent women suspected of being witches, the beheading of detractors, and sanctioning pedophilia was not enough; it must savage the elderly as well. Examples are evident presently as we consider what the future might bring; liberal leftist policies in several states during the COVID pandemic led to thousands of deaths of our elderly in nursing homes.

Christ said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” but the church’s false accusation of systemic American racism is far from any peacemaking. In fact, like its leftist counterpart, it states that America can burn until it repents of disagreeing with socialism.

Perhaps that’s the greatest sin of all.

paul

Before I begin to make my case, let me state the thesis. With Marxism, there are relevant human beings and irrelevant human beings. You either believe in the total inability of mankind, or you don’t. If you don’t, the sum and substance of your life is completely irrelevant. The Christian Marxist would use the Bible to state it this way: “All of the works of man are as filthy rags.” In that Bible verse, the Hebrew word used represents menstrual  rags.

If you believe in the total inability of man, your works are still filthy rags, but your total worth is judged by what you believe about humanity resulting in total obedience to the state. With Christian Marxism, you can replace “state” with “church,” and when Christian Marxism has fully bloomed, they are one and the same.

This translates into how the purpose of an individual is defined. The purpose of EVERY individual is to contribute to the state for the collective good as determined by the state. Of course the government has a right to tax you into poverty, it knows best how your money should be used for the “collective good.”  If the government didn’t take your money from you—you would only use it for yourself. Man must be ruled. He is inherently evil and must be saved from himself.

Purpose now defines worth. The worth of an individual is now determined by the individual’s ability to contribute to the state, and subsequently, the state’s definition of what the collective good is. Old people have little ability to contribute to the state; in fact, they are a burden on the state. Old people cost the state money and contribute nothing.

Though many of today’s evangelicals would deny the church doctrine of total depravity intellectually, they function according to its dictates. At the very least, they proclaim Total Depravity Light; “We are all just sinners saved by grace.”

The end-game of Marxist politics is the total submission of individuals to the state. Marxism uses different narratives cloaked in moralism to obtain that goal. Marxism’s worst nightmare is the idea that the world should be ruled by the collective good of individuals, and frankly, that’s the church’s worst nightmare as well because the doctrine of total depravity and Marxism are mutually inclusive. The church’s present participation in leftist narratives is a march towards the same end-game, and more and more, wittingly rather than unwittingly.

Sure, you have heard some squabbling here and there from church pastors over the government shutdown of churches because of the COVID pandemic, but a significant fuss is nowhere to be found. Even with some pastors being arrested for practicing their constitutional rights, the rest of the evangelical community remains silent. Even the premiere evangelical pastor of our day, John MacArthur Jr., is calling for “Christians” to quietly submit to the shutdown.

Furthermore, there is little discussion of any churches closing for financial reasons. How can this be? Two enormous church bodies that spearhead the New Calvinist era, the Southern Baptist and the Presbyterian Church of America, are showing little, if any financial strain. How in the world can this be? While I suppose that point could be argued to some degree, certainly, John MacArthur’s Grace to You religious empire and many others are not showing any significant financial shortfalls because of the pandemic shutdown.

This all seems strange when you consider the orthodoxy as well. According to New Calvinist orthodoxy, Church membership is synonymous with being part of Christ’s mystical body, and salvation must be progressed through obtaining the “ordinary means of grace” found only at church.

The fact is, evangelical churches of the 70s and 80s could not have financially survived this kind of shutdown, and the churches of the 50s and 60s would not have stood for it. What happened?

Simply stated, a dramatic shift in ideology because of the New Calvinist movement. Notice I am not referring to a change in doctrine, the doctrine of the church, Catholic or Protestant, has never changed, only the understanding of the doctrine.

Church was founded in a church-state, and was organized for the express purpose of church-state. Church shows up in the 4th century after successfully replacing the pagan-state as Rome’s mistress. The church, after a 200-year effort, finally got its marriage ring from the sugar-daddy it needed to enforce its orthodoxy.

Hence, church history begins, but the ekklesia of Christ was never a part of it. The ekklesia of Christ was never a party to the state in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the church had adopted pagan orthodoxy in order to obtain Rome’s favor, and that means philosophy was the primary authority for truth. The fact that the church fathers demanded the Bible be seen through the eyes of Plato is overt history.

But didn’t the Protestants come along and save us from all of that and return the church to its gospel roots? Hardly. That notion is the paramount historical hoax of the ages. Because of Thomas Aquinas’ integration of enlightenment ideas with Catholic church-state orthodoxy, a rift developed leading to the Protestant Reformation. The crux of the debate was the interpretation of reality and mankind’s role in reality. Augustine represented the Platonist view of reality adorned with Bible verses that drove Catholic orthodoxy for 1000 years. Aquinas was more influenced by Aristotle, and a debate within the church, the total inability of man versus the ability of man, began to fester.

Look, the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, sparked the Reformation with three proclamations: The 97 Theses, The 95 Theses, and the Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustinian Order. Two of the three proclamations were biblical treatises from a philosophical viewpoint. Martin Luther and John Calvin were rabid disciples of Augustine who was an avowed Platonist. None of this is obscure church history by any stretch of the imagination. Plato was Augustine’s authority for truth. This is not arguable. But the point here follows: Platonist Christianity calls for church-state; the two are mutually inclusive. According to Platonism, the sole purpose of man is to support the state. It’s collectivism.

The Protestant Reformation defeated Enlightenment Era ideas in the church, though the church remained split between Protestant and Catholic, while enlightenment ideas led to the American Revolution. The American Revolution was NOT a religious revolution; it was driven by ideas concerning the ability of man and his right to be free. For the first time in human history, the relationship between government and mankind was completely reversed, and consequently, the stated purpose of government was to serve the individual endeavors of mankind. Again, this was an idea never defended beforehand in human history.

The result was the confusion of true Catholicism and Protestantism in America. Churches retained worship procedure that reflected the church-state and the rejection of the biblical new birth, while intellectually, Americanism ruled the day. The worship tradition reflected the total depravity of mankind and progressive justification, while the intellectual confession was once-saved-always-saved and ideas of being literally born again, and therefore able to please God.

Hence, things like church attendance and tithing were matters of the heart and devotion, and were not seen as being linked to salvation in any way. Church was a volunteer army. Yet, its structure was still institutional because of its church-state foundation. This individualist mentality versus institutional authority created a tension that was always the elephant in the room at church. Yet, it made church, for the most part, a good thing from the end of the American Revolution to the 1970s. During those years, and due to being confused in a good way with Americanism, it was a force for good.

Then came a doctrinal tension in the Adventist church concerning the relationship between law and gospel. Americanism had caused the church to have some fuzzy idea of what the new birth is. The institutional tradition rejected new birth ideas, but most Churchians functioned according to fuzzy new birth ideas. In other words, and unfortunately, the functionality never surpassed biblical generalities. This resulted in the elephant in the room becoming too big for the room in Adventist circles.

An Adventist theologian, Robert Brinsmead, decided he would get to the bottom of the confusion once and for all by devouring all of the writings of the Protestant Reformation. And he did, and not being an American, he did so without an American worldview. What did he find out? He found TRUE Protestant soteriology. This, at first, started a movement in Seventh-Day Adventist circles, and then spread into Protestant circles, primarily beginning at Westminster Seminary in Pennsylvania. This was a return to authentic church-state Protestant orthodoxy. In the 70’s it was known as the “gospel recovery movement.” This caused a severe kerfuffle among Reformed Baptists resulting in the beginning of the Continental Baptist denomination in 1983. Its New Covenant Theology was an attempt to explain the Reformation’s overt error in making the law justification’s standard. In the 80s, it began to be known as the “Sonship Theology” movement which met with severe pushback in Presbyterian circles. The movement then went underground as the “gospel transformation” movement and started making noise again in 2006. It was then dubbed, “gospel sanctification.” In 2008, it obtained its present name, “New Calvinism.”

Consequently, New Calvinism is going to be in agreement with the state, especially its endeavor to control people, and will oppose American ideas. No one has heard one New Calvinist object to the shutdown, nor will you. In fact, they will endorse it, as they have.

Secondly, New Calvinist leaders have solidified their authentic Protestant view of authority over most church members which makes church attendance less important than remaining obedient to church leadership which ultimately saves them anyway. According to Protestant orthodoxy, church hierarchy has authority over salvation (John Calvin’s “Power of the Keys” doctrine).

Thirdly, the money issue. New Calvinists have solidified tithing as an “ordinary means of grace” along with The Lord’s Table etc., so, any significant drop in tithing is probably not taking place while overhead expenses plummet. New Calvinist churches are probably making money, not losing any.

President Donald Trump recently declared churches as “essential.” How essential? Are churches too big to fail? Like its church ancestors, New Calvinism is obviously striving to once again be married to the state. Where church history has been, and where it is going is inevitable, and true Christians have big decisions to make.

Perhaps the confused church was worth saving, but that ship has sailed. The church is going back to where it started. It was formed in a church-state and for the express purpose of a church-state.

paul

One of the biblical doctrines brought under sharper focus for me in recent months is so-called kingdom theology. If you don’t mind, I would like to claim the following view of kingdom theology for the home fellowship movement: we do not believe that God’s kingdom is presently on earth enforcing its authority over creation. If it was, the results would be obvious, as it will be when Christ returns and sets up His 1000 year kingdom on earth, and will rule the world from David’s throne in Jerusalem.

Secondly, God is not all that big on authority. The last enemy of God to be defeated will be death and that will occur at the end of His 1000 year reign. That means there will be some sin in the kingdom because some death will remain, although nothing like what we see now. Why would God work with such a plan? Because He is primarily concerned with love which is not valid without freewill. In the Old Testament, there was taxation under the law, and then there were freewill offerings that were driven by love, not compelled by force. God is love, and all about love, not law.

Hence, under the new and better covenant, there is no institutional Judaism, only love offerings. There is no tithing. God’s kingdom manifestations through Israel were ended with the destruction of the second temple. No temple, no kingdom. Period. The church institution tries to get around this by claiming a “spiritual kingdom” of God and claiming that the church is the visible institution of it on earth. For some reason, God decided to put men in charge of a kingdom on earth that competes with all of the other worldly kingdoms, while claiming that God is “sovereign” and “all powerful.” Meanwhile, supposedly, despotic kingdoms constantly give Him a run for His money. Nope, don’t think so. What I think follows: when Satan took Christ to a mountain top and offered Him the kingdoms of the world in exchange for His worship, it was a legitimate offer.

So, why is there a struggle between good and evil presently? If Satan is king of this present kingdom, why doesn’t evil rule the day? One, because of the conscience within every human being, at least, most of them. Second, God’s kingdom has ambassadors on earth. Third, the presence of the Holy Spirt. Fourth, man’s practical commonsense that avoids unnecessary suffering (what is “self-evident” to all). Fifth, what God creates is still good.

Yet, the present kingdom on earth prefers death—death is its calling card. It partakes in slow death through lifestyle, promotes anti-humanity ideologies, is full of control-lust, and thinks of people on different social strata as worthy of death. Justice is illusive because justice speaks to life value. When it gets right down to it, people who value life are seen as ignorant and uneducated. God demands justice and the defense of the weak because he values His creation generally, and individual human life in-particular.

Good people are a good thing, and when they are courageous enough to defend good, that is even better, but they still need to take the extra step and rescue themselves from this present kingdom of death. They need to prepare themselves for God’s coming kingdom. There is no neutral ground between these two kingdoms. And, I do think there are hedges of protection for those who belong to God in this world. And, I do think those guided by conscience receive blessings from God.

The present COVID pandemic has revealed this world’s overt disregard for life. Politics clearly trump any regard for life. If you cannot be controlled, or you are unwilling to be controlled, you are worthy of death. For many, money has a much higher value than life. Regardless of the fact that Chinese ill behavior has claimed the lives of 250,000 people worldwide, don’t expect the NBA or its players to express horror over it. For the NBA, China represents billions of dollars in yearly profits, and often toe the Communist line for this very reason. The COVID pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems in many countries resulting in people having to place their deceased loved ones at the street curb for eventual pickup and burial with no funerals. Yet, the production and market of expensive tennis shoes far outweigh any concern for such horrific results from the Chinese playing with dangerous viruses for questionable reasons. Past that, they CLEARLY allowed flights out of Wuhan to the rest of the world, hoarded PPE, moved in January to obtain a patent on remdesivir, and threatened to withhold it and other drugs from the United States.

My friends, in this kingdom, fancy tennis shoes are much more valuable than any life.

New York city is the blue chip of anti-humanity death ideology. CLEARLY, human life is far from being the highest priority there. Nurses from other parts of the country went to New York to help in the hospitals, and have testified to the horrifying disregard for life. At least two ER nurses have testified that patients are “being murdered” by the hundreds in New York hospitals through incompetence and indifference.

Though I am no big fan of the church, I would see the Samaritan’s Purse medical efforts there as totally positive. Yes, Billy Graham’s total inability of man doctrine is annoying, but nurses confused about religious issues can still be good nurses. The bottom line should be a question of whether or not their presence there saved lives. For certain, as a patient there, your survival chances are demonstrably higher in the Samaritan Purse tents. As a healthcare worker, I can tell you where I would have worked without a second thought. Yes, the mentality that prayer is needed at every turn to be successful lest we do good “by our own power” would have been annoying, but the bottom line is how many lives are saved.  Yet, Samaritan’s Purse was harassed and bullied by the New York city politicians because of their anti-homosexual position. However, I think we know a Muslim organization would not have received the same treatment though Muslim countries execute homosexuals.

Regardless of overwhelming evidence that certain treatments cured COVID patients, such treatments were deliberately withheld for political reasons. Governors even banned the treatments through executive order and threatened to jail doctors who administered the treatments. Many effective treatments for COVID were discovered early in the pandemic, but the pandemic was deliberately extended with no holds barred fear mongering for purely political reasons. Again, we must remember, control-lust is a primary element of sin, and in this present kingdom, those who will not “humble themselves” and submit to being controlled, are worthy of slow death.

And finally, regardless of the resources sent to New York to guarantee its health system would not be overwhelmed, those resources were saved for those better suited to “contribute to the group (society at large).” Older people who were hospitalized were mandated to LTC facilities that lacked proper PPE and training. This resulted in isolating infected people with non-infected people where distancing is difficult. This resulted in mass death in New York nursing homes. This was completely foreseeable. In LTC facilities we call the people who live there, “residents” because it is their home in the strictest sense of the definition. By law, they are endowed with rights to be treated with dignity, and to be free from abuse and harm. New York ran over those rights with a Mack truck.

God’s creation has value. What God creates is still good: “For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” The Bible doctrine that substantiates that is “Redemption.” Redemption is NOT salvation. Something that is redeemable has value. The fact that God will resurrect dead bodies speaks volumes to life value.

And that is what justice is all about; justice speaks to life value. Any religion that downplays justice because “we all deserve hell anyway” (Luther/Calvin) is a religion that disdains life and God’s creation.

But don’t make this a religious matter only: in the same way, politics are founded on life value. Though not our kingdom, and we look for that city built God, Christians are worthy ambassadors according to their politics in this kingdom.

paul