Lex, Rex

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/Biblical-Economics/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

Define the terms "Christian Economics" or "Biblical Economics".

I wish I could see the stumped look on most of your faces right now. When was the last time your pastor spent time on a topic like that? Or how many Adult Sunday School classes in your life have focused on the Biblical ethics of business? Have you ever attended a midweek Bible study that focused on the way in which God desires markets to operate and how capitalistic/socialistic systems line up with the Bible?

Some of you reading this might assume the reason you have heard so little about economics and business in church, Bible studies or in Christian literature is because the Bible primarily deals with more "spiritual" issues.

Many if not most of you believe that Christians can just as easily be economic capitalists, socialists, conservatives, liberals or whatever they care to be because God doesn't really care...so why would we? And if that is you, you're wrong.

God cares about economics, big time.

Leviticus 19:35-36 ESV

"You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 25:13-16 ESV

"You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small. A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Psalm 37:21 ESV

The wicked borrows but does not pay back, but the righteous is generous and gives.

Proverbs 19:17 ESV

Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

Haggai 2:8 ESV

The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord of hosts.

Ephesians 4:28 ESV

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.

These verses are just a quick sampling, there are so many more. We are going to spend a few installments expounding on these verses and many others in order to clearly lay out what Biblical economics are and how Christians are to understand them. Topics will include Christian business ethics, Christian labor ethics, Christian employer ethics and God's plan for markets in society.

This nation is as confused economically as it is, in large part, because Christians have been so ambiguous when it comes to preaching and teaching on Godly economics. And the economic and business practices of a nation matters, they really matter. Ungodly economics result in poverty. Ungodly economics result in the oppression of the poor. It results in suffering. It results in fruitless toiling. Ungodly economics is sin with terrible, immediate, unjust, real-world results. The only hope we have in seeing that change is for Christians (like our forefathers) to bring much needed clarity, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to society through preaching and teaching on economics from the Bible. We are called to be salt and light in society…economics, finance and business morality is not excluded.

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/What-Gives-You-The-Right/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

Do people have the right to bear arms? Do people have the right to publicly speak their mind on controversial matters, to worship as they feel is appropriate and to live their lives in privacy? As Americans we have The Bill of Rights which specifically outline certain behaviors the government will not (or should not) seek to control and since it's called "The Bill of Rights", most just assume those activities are indeed rights…but on what basis are those behaviors deemed as such? Who determines what sorts of behaviors are "rights" and which are not?

Generations of Americans have lived their entire lives not needing to give much thought to questions like these. Rights are rights, everyone knows that. But I assure you, as nearly half of this country lurches hard-left these fundamental questions regarding the nature of rights are going to become hotly debated for the first time since at least the Civil War and probably since the pre-Revolutionary War period (it is worth pointing out the end result both times the nation was this divided regarding the basic nature of rights was the nightmare of war).

Do women have the right to an abortion? Is healthcare a basic human right? Is public education a right? Is a living wage a right? Do same-sex couples have the right to marry? The Democrats believe all of those are so and will be running more and more on the basis of being the champions of human rights. They are framing their entire mission around being the torchbearers of civil morality. For example, we are now told it's immoral to become a billionaire and it's immoral for a nation to allow billionaires to exist when that same nation has poor people living in it. Or how about errecting a border wall, is that immoral? According to liberals and Democrats, it absolutely is.

Remember when it was the "religious right" who was accused of jamming morality down people's throats? Yeah.

So here we are, at another significant crossroads in history were Christians need to, once again, be salt and light in society. Part of what God calls Christians to do is to bring moral clarity to culture, not by force or compulsion, but by the supernatural power of preaching and teaching from the Bible. I'll say it again and again…if the people of God will not bring clarity to society when needed the World will be glad to define terms for us. We need to be strong, clear and quick with deep simplicity.

So, how are we supposed to think about all these new "rights" people now claim? Does something become a right if I claim it as my right? Does it become a right if the government endorses it? How this question is dealt with will determine exactly how rights are treated…and that is no small matter whatsoever. This is a big deal.

There is actually a deeper question still which probably needs addressed and that is regarding if rights are a "thing" in the first place or are they just a social construct? Do people have ANY rights by austere birthright? The answers to such questions are found as you might imagine in the Bible. Here are a couple Scriptures which explicitly confirm for us that people do in fact have "rights"...

Psalm 82:3 ESV

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

Proverbs 31:8-9 ESV

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

There are a host of other Scriptures which detail specific rights but suffice it to say here at the outset that "rights" are "real" …and people have them. No matter if they are rich or poor, strong or weak, male or female, sinner or saint, people have rights.

And since the Bible confirms for us the reality of rights it is not a hard step to take from there to understand that those rights have come from God (because all good gifts come from Him). They are not invented, they are discovered. They are not developed, they are recognized. They are not devised, they are identified. If this way of thinking regarding the origin and nature of rights is not understood and respected chaos will ensue, it has always ensued, it will always ensue, and it did not ensue in America because it was understood and respected! Next time we will begin the hard work of determining which rights God has granted to people and which claimed rights are usurpations.

Genesis 1:26 ESV

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/Nobody-Is-Gay/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

Liberals are exceptionally good at defining the terms of every debate and conservatives tend to get circles ran around them as a result. There are almost countless examples of this, but let's look at the issue of homosexuality. Why do we all but accept the premise that there is a type of person who is a "homosexual" or a type of person who is a "transgender" when there is absolutely no biological evidence for it? Of course, there are men who are sexually attracted to men, but that doesn't mean they are "homosexual" ontologically or biologically. There are men who want to be women and some who actually think they are women, but they're not. There is nothing in their biology or chemistry which would demonstrate anything other than masculinity. Sexual attraction has a host of spiritual, emotional, psychological contributing factors at work, but none of it has to do with biology. People are not born with a "homosexual" gene or a "transgendered" gene any more than I was born with a gene that makes me attracted to women with a pretty face, sweet disposition and some meat on the bone. There is simply no such thing as a "homosexual" or "transgendered" person. There are only people who are excited by or perhaps engage in homosexual sex for various spiritual and psychological reasons. They were not born that way, they became that way. Homosexuality is something that develops, it is not innate or natural.

Sexual attraction is not a "type" of person in the same way as an African, European, Asian, Hispanic or Arab is a "type" of person. We can dig up bones of a 7,000 year old human and can determine with certainty their sex, race, ethnicity and approximate age. There is absolutely no way to determine what type of sex they were into. There is absolutely no way to determine if they were cross dressers either. These are made up categories without any biological basis and yet we have allowed liberals to frame such things as legitimate categories.

When we announce to the world that homosexuality is a "sin" which must be "repented of" and that there is "freedom" from it, do you have any idea how bizarre that sounds to them? You need to understand that to them we might as well be telling Dutch people that being White is a "sin" which must be "repented of" and there is "freedom" from it or telling Egyptian people that being Arab is a "sin". How can something be a "sin" which must be "repented of" and how can there be "freedom" from it if one is BORN this way? If it is part of their inborn composition, if it is a part of who they are by nature and biology, how can one repent of it? How can a white person stop being white? How can a woman repent for being a woman when she's born that way? Likewise, how can a "gay person" repent of their "gayness" when they were born that way?

Do you see the problem? We need to stop assuming people have a proper understanding of basic human ontology and nature. Christians are not telling people they must deny nature to be saved...but most of the world doesn't know we are not saying that! They think we ARE saying that someone is damned because they were created by God a certain way. They think that is what we are saying because we are not bold enough to challenge the underlying presumption that people are by nature gay or transgender. We need to be much clearer that those with same sex attraction and/or gender confusion are being called by God to return to their natural state, not vice-versa. They are not being called to deny who they are, they are being called to embrace who they are. We are not the ones who are twisting terms, those in the world are doing that.

We must be clear about the historic, orthodox and Biblical Christian teaching regarding homosexuality. First, the behavior is a sin according to the Bible. Homosexual sex is not appropriate, regardless of how attractive it seems to someone. It's not as if those with same-sex attraction are the only ones called to abstain from sexually immoral behavior. All unmarried people are called to the same standard of chastity. Just because you want to do it doesn't mean you should do it, same goes with me and my sexual urges. It's called self-control and self-restraint and the Bible calls all men to exercise it. Can you even imagine the jungle we'd be living in right now if morality was simply determined by personal desire, preference and taste? Second, because you were not "born gay", because there is no such thing as a "homosexual person", you absolutely can have your desires changed by the power of the Gospel. Homosexuality is a type of sex, not a type of person. Someone can be labeled a "homosexual" if they engage in homosexual sex just like someone can be labeled an "adulterer" if they engage in adultery. In both cases the power of the Gospel can wash those labels away. Someone who has repented of the sin of adultery is no longer an "adulterer". In that case it should be said they once were an adulterer but now they are not. The same is true homosexual lusts…it can be repented of, forgiven and controlled. In neither the case of the "homosexual" nor the "adulterer" is the condition a natural one. God did not make anyone to be predisposed to either sin, they are both sins are the result of our fallen natures and our choices.

There is no way to speak clearly the life changing Gospel if we continue to allow liberals, humanists and atheists to frame the terms of the debate. That doesn't mean we won't catch major blow back when we finally get bold enough to say, "there are no gay people". We will probably get banned off social media platforms for saying that. Articles like these will get buried off Google search results. I get it, believe me I get it. I don't write articles for my health; I want people to read what I write just like any other author does. I understand that writing provocative things like this will hamper the scope of my potential readership. I get it. But they can't muffle us all, they can't turn the lights off in our churches, they can't rip down our signs, they can't prevent us from talking to people and they can't haul us off to jail for saying it…not yet at least. The question is this…do we care about the "gay community" or not? Do we care about their souls? Do we care about their burdens? Do we care about their salvation? If we do, then it will cost us to reach them just like it has always cost God's people to reach hostile people groups. Has there ever been a people group who has ever been glad to be told they have been misled by people they LOVED? Has there ever been a people group who were not initially hostile to being told their traditions, beliefs and practices are offensive to God? No…this is always the case, at first. Reaching the gay community with the Gospel will cost us, we need to stop being afraid and realize this is nothing new. Taking arrows for the advancement of the Gospel is par for the course.

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/Presidential-Elections/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

Let's just cut to the chase…the way in which we select our President is going to destroy this country.

The popular vote, which is a direct result of the influence of democratic thinking in American culture, will be the end of this nation as it was founded. The United States is going to end in civil war one of these days, mark those works. Inevitable civil war is exactly why the nation was not designed to select a President the way we are doing it right now and it sure as heck is the reason why they rejected any semblance of a nationwide popular vote. We too frequently act like our system "just is what it is" as if there isn't a point behind the way it is set up…and that is simply wrong. There is a reason why the founders selected the mode of presidential election that they did. They direly wanted to tamp down the volatile influence of democracy (and of course they wanted to end the monarchial system of divine right to rule as well).

Do you understand how badly they wanted to avoid democratic rule? Stop and think about the impression you commonly have been given in public schools and in the news media regarding the intention of Constitutional government. The fact of that matter is that the whole system is set up in opposition to democracy, yet do you get that impression today? Are we not told that "our democracy" is the most sacrosanct facet of the American heritage? It's just not true, this was never intended to be a democracy. The American patriots were anything but ambivalent about the democratic election of the President. They were aware of the appeal of democracy and categorically rejected it.

Their intention to avoid electing Presidents by way of popular vote really is common sense. Every time you ask people to vote you are asking them to divide themselves up and pick sides. In order to be sure you get a majority vote you need to demonize the opposition in such a way that at least 51% of the population is so appalled by the other side that they will want nothing to do with them. You need to fire people up and motivate them with the desire to win. You must make it clear to them that if the other side wins, they will lose. You must convince them that those others must be "defeated". You must convince them that the whole nation is in peril if the other side wins. Hate and fear are tremendous motivators and they win elections...they also justify the escalations leading to violence.

A nation can only pit its people against each other like that for so long, sooner or later things will overheat and then melt down. Read President Washington's Farewell Address and look at how earnestly he pleaded with the people (and future American generations) to avoid "factions" at all costs...he knew our day would come otherwise.

Perhaps as we look back with 20/20 hindsight, we can identify a few flaws in their foresight, which they expected and allowed an amendment process to exist for future generations to fix such oversights. I would argue that they should have been much clearer as to how the electoral college should work. The choice of President ought not involve a popular vote at all…ever. Not even at the State level. There should be no national campaigns because there should simply be no need for such a thing.

State legislatures ought to appoint Electors to the Electoral College and those Electors ought to caste their votes for the POTUS independently from those legislatures and independently from direct public pressure. They ought to be selected by the legislature, but not controlled by them much in the same way as judges are selected but independent and not a controlled body. They ought to only serve once with new electors being installed every four years. If the people are upset by who their state legislatures have appointed to the Electoral College, they can of course either recall those legistlators or vote them out at the next election. This would provide some accountability to the people for who is elected President…but not directly. This isn't, never was and never should be a democracy. We must get back to electing Presidents the way the Founders intended. If we don't, we will start shooting at one another someday. Civil War will be inevitable if we don't stop it, the Founders had enough sense to recognize that and set us on a different course.

The Bible does not prescribe a way to recognize national leaders, it just says that we are to be submissive to them so long as they remain His servant. However, there can be little doubt that God intends for a nation to remain unified, not hatefully divided. Anything that fans the flames sectarianism, tribalism and balkanization will inevitably lead to civil war. It is just human nature to allow things to go that way, so as Christians we ought to strongly oppose any form of government which pits American's against one another in vitriolic ways. Our current system does that, that's not even debatable. People will always oppose each other philosophically, we do not need a system which exacerbates, inflames and weaponizes those differences…and the way we elect Presidents does just that.

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/Capital-Punishment-MUST-Be-HaltedFor-Now/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

We are going to wrap up our series on Capital Punishment, a series inspired by the interesting way California Governor Gavin Newsom explained his reason for shutting down death row facilities in his state. Instead of offering up the usual "the death penalty is immoral" argument, he said he refused to continue with the practice in his state while knowing innocent people are getting swept up into a broken system and wrongly killed. That line of reasoning changes things and any true pro-life Christian ought to slow down in criticizing him in a knee jerk reaction, it's easy to do that whenever a liberal Democrat does ANYTHING. Don't be so quick to dismiss the concerns of a liberal Democrat, especially when one is taking a pro-life stand. Remember, he's not stopping the practice because he feels killing murderers is wrong, he is stopping it because he said he believes killing innocent people is wrong…and as far as that goes, he's right! As we detailed in our previous edition, the Bible is very clear in commanding the death penalty for murders. But only in an impartial, fair, unbiased and reasoned way! Both Deuteronomy 17:6 and Numbers 35:30 instruct that two witnesses must confirm guilt before anyone can be executed. There is no such thing as circumstantial evidence described in the Bible, the threshold to clear certainty was set very high in the Bible.

Pro-life Christians should have no problem whatsoever temporarily ending the death penalty if there is reasonable evidence to show systemic injustice leading to executions. If there is good reason to believe innocent people have been and at this rate will be executed, we shouldn't even have to think twice about an impermanent moratorium on the practice.

But is that a reasonable assumption to make? Is it reasonable to assume our system is so screwed up right now that we have innocent people being (or preparing to be) executed?

It is reasonable to believe that. Actually, it's more than reasonable to conclude our criminal justice system is that messed up, and I will provide the following reasons to demonstrate that:

The process in the United States is totally and completely arbitrary, and that is a massive ethical problem. The Bible says murders should be executed by the state. Not some murders. Not murders from certain classes. Not murders without good lawyers. Not murders who are mentally sane. Just…murderers. All of them. Is that the case today in the United States? Absolutely not! According to the FBI, in 2017 there were 17,284 murders in the United States. How many executions did we have in the United States in 2017? 23. Total. We had 17,284 murders and only 23 executions! We had 17,284 murders in this country in 2017 and only 39 people were sentenced to death!

What is that? Obviously, these numbers would never be equal because everyone isn't caught, tried and executed all in same year. However, these numbers ought to be in the same ballpark if we had anything approaching equal justice! Just sit back and think about these discrepancies, good grief! What did those 39 who were sentenced to die in 2017 do that was so much more egregious than the other THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of murderers in this country who aren't sentenced to death? Nothing…and that's a problem. What on earth is the standard for capital punishment? It certainly isn't being found guilty of murder, that's for sure. This inequality and terribly random system ought to be harshly condemned by Christians. The Bible is very clear that the criminal justice system must be impartial. Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 17 lay out detailed procedures of justice which the ancient Jews had to adhere to in order to executed. Due process and equal justice wasn't a goal to aspire to, it was a minimum requirement in order to operate! How can we have over 17,000 murders, only 39 death sentences handed out and just 23 executed in the same year and call that equal justice? The law is obviously not being applied equally and there are a HOST of reasons for it, none of which is the point. It doesn't matter why it's not being applied equally; the point is that when it comes to the death penalty, it needs halted until that is fixed. You can't have different standards when it comes to exectuting people for crying out loud!

Not only do we have a terrible application of the death penalty where only a small fraction of convicted murderers get it (in defiance of the Bible which says all of them should get it), but the number of likely innocent people awaiting the death penalty right now is horrifying! According to researchers from the University of Michigan, as of 2014 at least 4.1% of prisoners on death row are innocent! Can you imagine being handed a gun and walked into a room of 100 convicts and being told you had to kill each one of them, knowing it is likely 4 or 5 of them are innocent? That scenario is so obscene that any pro-life Christian ought to be repulsed by the thought! Again, Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 17 make it clear that before the state can execute someone, they must be certain of the prisoner's guilt. How can anyone be certain of guilt when there is good reason to believe 4-5% of death row inmates are innocent?

Still not aghast yet? Then let this stat sink in…from 1973 to 2015 the United States executed over 1400 prisoners. During that same time span 156 prisoners were exonerated off of death row. So that means, for every 10 executions, 1 death row inmate was exonerated! Is our criminal justice system run by Keystone Cops? What is this? Are they throwing cases up against the wall and just hoping some stick?

From 1973 to 2002, a total of 36 people were convicted of murder and sentenced to death in New Orleans. Of those 36 convicts, 9 had exculpatory evidence withheld in their cases! Once this miscarriage of justice was discovered 4 of them were thankfully exonerated!

I could highlight the radical injustice, corruption and ineptitude in capital murder cases over, and over, and over, and over…

The Bible is clear, murderers are to be executed by the state. All of them. But the state must be positive and certain they are not executing innocent people! That's not an option, folks. If our government cannot abide by the Biblical mandate regarding the death penalty and the threshold of certainty needed (by way of due process and equal application) then the sword should be removed from its hand until it can do so responsibly. Pro-life Christians must educate themselves regarding the terrible system which is leading to innocent people being sentenced to death and then be the loudest ones calling for a moratorium until significant corrections are made to our system of criminal justice.

This isn't a game, we either speak for the innocent and defend the helpless or we are hypocrites.

If authorized by law I'd personally pull the trigger, flip the switch or kick the stool out from under a murderer's feet myself and not lose much sleep over it. My sympathies are with the family of the victim. But the system by which the state investigates, prosecutes and executes people must be right. We can't get it wrong 4-5% of the time, are you kidding me? That is absolutely not acceptable. That cannot happen, and until we are sure that won't continue to happen we must institute a temporary moratorium on executions in this nation.

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/The-Rise-of-Marxism-in-America/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

The rise of Marxism in the United States is breathtaking, really. No longer is it in the fringes of the radical left, it's gone mainstream in a big time way and seems to be at least somewhat appealing if not attractive to about half of this country (this is particularly true with young people). The philosophy and worldview of Marx is shouted from nearly every university rooftop in this country, echoed throughout the mainstream media and now we even have it being promoted by leading and prominent elected officials in our federal government. And all of this is bolstered by a strong, passionate and very aggressive grassroots network of pawns activists more than willing to protest the National Anthem, hit the streets with profanity fueled harassment of political enemies, block traffic, interrupt speeches, riot, send terroristic threats and one left wing activist even shot real bullets at Congressmen!

The Marxist playbook is always the same and is no different today, it starts with hyper-division. No nation divided can stand so their first step is to work tirelessly at creating deep, bitter divisions within the nation. You do that by making those with a differing perspective into rivals, and then turning those rivals into monsters. From there it's just a small half step to go from dealing with monsters to dealing with full blown enemies. Pick any nation which has fallen to the Marxists throughout history and you will see that exact same pattern played out. The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela…it's always the same.

And it always ends the same way...dystopia.

That is why it is so important churches and church leaders in America wake up and begin to use their prophetic voices to speak out against this incoming tsunami. It seems like Christians in the pews are far more tuned-in to what is happening and the dire consequences which await the nation if this threat is not beaten back than church leaders are (this is especially true in larger churches and influential church networks which insist churches need to stay out of politics no matter what is going on) …and that's not good. God calls leaders in the church to stand as alert watchmen and to serve and protect the sheep both from doctrinal heresy but also from the consequences of avoidable atrocities.

Ezekiel 33:6 ESV

If the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.

Marxism isn't a game, it's not cute and rebuking it over and over and over is not "preaching politics" or "getting political". This isn't about politics, this is about the sanctity of life and the perseverance of human dignity. Marxism is, by far, the most damnable heresy to ever hit the world and heresy it is. It is based in doctrine, philosophy and a certain worldview…and all of it is contradictory to what God has revealed in the Bible. Marxism is another gospel, it is accursed. And any nation which operates according to it is accursed as well.

I am going to avoid the temptation to really dive deep into the history and philosophical underpinnings of process philosophy and later what we now call Marxism, but I do not want to leave those of you with a desire to take that deep dive without direction. I can't recommend the book "Prevailing Worldviews Of Western Society Since 1500" by Glenn R. Martin more strongly to you. Buy it and read it.

But for now, I'll try to boil it down to the big, overarching doctrine of Marxism which contradicts the message of the Bible: The Marxist worldview sees the struggle, peril and suffering of man as being rooted in the economic exploitation of the capitalist class (aka owners of the means of production) over the laborer class, rather than it being the consequence of human sinfulness (i.e. sinners hurting themselves and hurting other sinners). The "savior" in the Marxist worldview is the government who alone can set things straight rather than Jesus Christ and the "Promised Land" is a Communist Utopia rather than Heaven.

The crucial need to understand this fundamental worldview difference simply cannot be overstated…the need is URGENT…because the resulting dead body count from misunderstanding it is right at around 100 million and still counting. Just to give you some perspective on that number, the combined death toll of WWI and WWII was about 103 million…the numbers are mind boggling. And all of it is the direct result of the Marxist worldview taking root in the minds and hearts of countless credulous, susceptible and gullible people. It can hardly be questioned that the pervasive appeal of Marxism despite its dreadful, atrocious history and unswerving end result wherever tried does nothing but prove the depraved blindness of man and the demonic origin and influence of the doctrine.

Radicals in power such as Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the very reason why we have a 2^nd Amendment. They and their ilk are a far greater threat to our lives and liberty than Osama Bin Laden could have ever dreamed to have been. Pastor, do you understand that? Do you understand how serious it is to have government officials in prominent positions of authority who are full blown Marxists? Do you understand how ungodly that is? Are your people aware of just how ungodly that is and how dangerous that is? Long before this government is completely overthrown by Marxists, forcing the people to take up arms to resist it and protect themselves, Christians ought to be calling it out. Preachers ought to be warning the people of the evil that is wrapping its tentacles around their throats. Marxism is a lethal cancer; a poisonous heresy and it must not be treated with kid gloves. Now is the time to sound the alarm, preacher. If these emerging Marxists coming to power are not stopped, they will disarm the people. They will drive Biblical churches underground. They will starve millions. They will arrest pastors. They will operate firing squads. They are Marxists and this is what Marxists do.

Satan is behind this movement, and churches ought to preach against it…if we can't speak out against this what good are we?

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/Social-Media-Bias-and-How-To-Fix-It/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

I'm not going to take time linking to stories proving the overt bias in social media and the way in which Christians/conservatives/libertarians/nationalists are shadow banned, censored and often times outright banned over expressing their right-wing moral and political views. It's so rampant that there's just no doubt that it is happening. It's blatant, constant and undeniable.

It's a big time issue and would take you no more than 2 minutes to verify.

Social media at one point was what the internet was supposed to be about. It connects people and keeps them in touch unlike anything in human history. Think about that. Part of "connecting" of course is "sharing". Sharing pictures, mile markers, hurts, victories and big announcements are all part of it. So is sharing thoughts, opinions, ideas, philosophies, morality, religious worldviews and political positions. This was the beauty and genius of social media. Having the ability to connect with others by expressing ourselves intellectually and emotionally in a way that we may not be comfortable doing in immediate social settings is just fantastic. This openness allows you to get to know what make me tick a bit more clearly, and I can get a track on you and your thinking as well simply by observing how you post. Social media has the amazing potential to help people better "connect" with others by making them more comfortable to "share".

I love the idea, count me in! I think it's cool.

Big tech no longer wants us to connect. Understand that. They want us to go back to yesteryear when openly sharing thoughts about religion and politics in public was frowned upon and considered impolite. "Connecting" is still the buzzword they use, but they don't want us to really connect anymore. They want us to censor ourselves and if we won't censor ourselves, they'll just censor us themselves. This is especially true for conservative Christians; they don't want non-Christian, non-traditional and/or liberal people "connecting" with us. I can't say for sure why that is, but I certainly suspect they don't like our uncanny ability to convert openminded people. Whatever the reason, they want to stifle that potential for "connection".

Let's get this straight before we proceed…Private companies have the right to determine the way they operate; they have the right to set the rules and nobody has the right to hijack the sites these companies have created. Take for example our Christ Is King Ministries website. This website is ours. We paid for the domain. We paid for the development. We pay for the hosting. It's not yours, it's ours. We own it. You don't have the right to publish on the site and if we do give access to someone in order for them to publish an article, we maintain the right to take it down if we don't like it. This site is ours; we own it. Facebook has the right to censor their site, as does Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, LinkedIN…whoever! The same goes for newspapers, magazines, book publishers, tv networks and radio stations as well. Companies have the right to tailor their sites any way they wish. This is America and private ownership of property ought to still be sacrosanct.

So that's it? Social media companies have own their sites which they own, therefore have the right to censor them as they wish, and conservatives and Christians can just go pound sand if they don't like it?

Not so fast.

The "free market" response would be totally fine IF social media operated within a free market…but they don't. The Congress has carved out a very special exemption for them that no other publisher in this country enjoys. It's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Internet companies, blogs and outfits which have become known as "social media" are not treated as "publishers" by law. Instead, the law has a new category referred to as "public forums" or "platforms". All that means is that while they do contain content, they are not content creators OR editors. They are simply providing a "public forum and public platform" for others to "publish" their content on. As "platforms" they are not overseeing the content or making any editorial oversight other than ensuring crimes are not being committed on their "public forums" or "platforms".

That designation and resulting legal protection changes things when it comes to thinking about how "free market" dynamics should apply here. Up until the last two years or so, social media and other online platforms have abided by this agreement. They prohibited illegal activity from being conducted using their services. Eventually they began expanding those narrow parameters and started to include otherwise lawful expressions of racism. Stuff like that began to be referred to as "hate speech". And since so few Americans are racists, few minded. But even that was a breach of their designation as "platforms". Once they waded into those waters, they suddenly began to assume content publishing responsibilities. And of course, the umbrella of what they consider "hate speech" has expanded tremendously lately and includes far more than just racism. Nowadays if you criticize the immorality of the gay lifestyle or if you "misgender" someone by referring to them by the gender God gave them when He assigned their biological sex or if you espouse what the establishment considers a conspiracy theory you are engaging in prohibited "hate speech" or "bullying". Each of the big social media corporations now have LEGIONS of full time editors scanning their sites for "hate speech", reviewing complaints of "hate speech" and censoring their sites when they believe they have found someone publishing it.

And that's FINE, but they need to give up the shielding of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if that's how they want to run their sites. They can't have it both ways, but as of now they do. They are either publishers who are legally responsible for the content on their sites and can be sued for libel just like any other publisher, or they are "public forums" or "platforms" who are not responsible for the otherwise legal content on their sites. It's either one or the other.

Congress must amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immediately and clarify that any online company who enjoys this liability protection must honor the 1^st Amendment in return. If they are a protected public forum then they must act like the public square. That is more than a fair trade off for the American people who are providing them this legal shielding after all. Again, they do not need to agree to such terms and that is fine. They have the right to censor the content on their sites, they have the absolute right to do that. But we the American people do not need to provide them extra liability exemption that no other publisher in the country enjoys. Newspapers aren't exempt from legal action for materials they publish, no content publisher is! If social media companies are going to enjoy libel shielding, claiming they are a "public forum" then they must be forced to allow their platform to function like a town square. If they want to use editorial discretion regarding what they will allow to be broadcast on their sites, then they are not a public forum and should not be shielded from liabilities associated with publishing content.

Why are we letting them have their cake and eat it to? That's crazy.

I'm not calling for government corrosion, get that right. The government has no business busting the doors down of ANY private company and demanding they operate in a certain way (other than in compliance with the same laws which apply to all). What I am saying is we must let THE COMPANIES decide what they are and then let the law apply to them accordingly. If they are a public forum that honors free speech (i.e. does not punish certain speech with bans, shadow bans, algorithm games) then we can in good faith apply the protections laid out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to them. If they are not comfortable allowing just anything to be stated on their sites (which is understandable! Truly nasty, hateful things are none the less lawful under the 1^st Amendment) then that is fine! Again, that's how newspapers, tv, radio and magazines all operate and have operated for 100 years or more! But in that case, there's no reason to apply Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to them. Why should we? Why should they get such protection when no other publisher does?

Leave the ball in their court. Tell us what you are, you can't be both. This isn't hard to figure out.

There's no need to commandeer them. No need to break them up. No need to regulate them like utilities. Just make them decide if they are public forum and platform or if they are a publisher and then proceed accordingly. Leave it up to the users to censor content they don't like. Leave the block options in place for people. Allow them to block content creators who are saying things they disdain, allow them to block certain words from ever even popping up on their feeds. There's nothing wrong with allowing the end users the ability to control the ideas and content they expose themselves to…that's how the public square works! In the public square you have the right to speak and I have the right to not listen to you.

Do that and I promise you the problem with conservatives and Christians being censored will be SOLVED instantly. There's no social media company in this country willing to give up Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act…it's the secret to their success! Take that away and they might as well shut their sites down.

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/The-Death-Penalty-Is-Not-Immoral/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

We started this series by highlighting the noteworthy way in which California Governor Gavin Newsom explained his executive decision to close death row facilities in his state. Instead of making the usual argument of contending the death penalty is immoral, the Governor said he could not allow capital punishment to continue under his watch while knowing there are innocent people who will be executed in the process. A charge like that certainly changes things. Rather than arguing about the morality of killing killers, he argues it is immoral to kill non-killers. And as I wrote last time, we ought to all agree that executing people while at the same time knowing it is almost certain innocent ones will end up lumped in with the guilty is an immoral situation to shrug at and "just accept". The question we will be getting to in future installments of this series is if that is a reasonable assumption to make about our criminal justice system today or not. If so, then a temporary moratorium on the death penalty is more than just appropriate, it's an urgent moral imperative. Again, we will get into that debate in installments still forthcoming.

Today we need to address the longstanding, overarching charge that capital punishment is in and of itself immoral, even when we are positive those being executed are guilty of murder. Many question the moral clarity, consistency and integrity of Christians in the pro-life movement over the death penalty. "How can you be for the death penalty and call yourself 'pro-life'?" Or "How can you say you believe in the 'sanctity of life' and yet support capital punishment?" Those are not illogical questions, they're very reasonable and deserve a thoughtful response.

The basis for questions like these is sound. Human life is sacred. All human life is sacred. Even the lives of killers and rapists is sacred. Christians go even further and confess that human life is sacred because humans…even rapists and murderers…bear the image of God. The Bible is abundantly clear on the sanctity of human life from the womb to the tomb. Here are just a few examples of Scripture which clearly indicate the supremacy of humanity over all other creatures and the resulting sanctity of every human life which we must embrace:

Genesis 1:26 ESV

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Exodus 20:13 ESV

You shall not murder.

Jeremiah 1:5 ESV

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you

Luke 12:6-7 ESV

Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

There is no doubt whatsoever that human dignity exceeds anything in the created order. God has a special love for humanity which He does not have even for angels. We don't often think if it in those terms, but it is true. So great is His love for the world that He sent Jesus to die for people of the world. Fallen angels have no possibility of redemption…why not? Because God does not love fallen angels like He loves fallen humans.

So, again, the basis for thinking the death penalty is immoral is sound…it's incomplete…but it starts off soundly. All humans are sacred (that part is sound) therefore to take a human life is always sacrilege (that part is incomplete). The argument takes the implication of human sacredness further than the Bible takes it. The Bible never suggests it is always sacrilege, blasphemous, sinful of even immoral to take a human life. In fact, the greatest charge against the Bible by critics today is the shocking amount of God-sanctioned bloodshed in it! God commands His people to kill so many enemies and murderers in the Bible that it would be hard to even estimate the actual number of souls the Lord commanded His people to take! And lest you think this is simply an Old Testament dynamic you need to know that during the end times Christians will "make war" with the Antichrist and his demonic armies. It doesn't say they'll be persecuted by the Antichrist; it says he will make war with them…that means they will be firing back and killing people! War, unlike persecution, is never a one way street.

Not only does God order the killing of enemies in warfare, but He is also very clear that murders must be put to death as well.

Genesis 9:6 ESV

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image"

Exodus 21:12 ESV

"Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death."

Leviticus 24:17 ESV

"Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death."

Acts 25:11 ESV

"If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar."

I'm not exactly sure how much clearer the Lord can be, these commands are very blunt and easy to understand. And again, this is not simply and Old Testament deal. The Apostle Paul very clearly confirms there are crimes which people "deserve" to die for. There is nothing confusing about what the Bible says, murderers must be executed.

Instead of devaluing the dignity of human life, the death penalty serves to bolster it. So heinous is the sin of murder, so terrible is the act of taking a human life in an unjustified way, that the only penalty strong enough to properly demonstrate the severity of the crime is capital punishment. No other consequence gets the point across properly, every other sentence falls short of demonstrating the sacrosanct nature of human life. Capital punishment for murder is a universal sign that human life is sacred and anyone who dares snuff it without just cause (self defense for example) should have their life taken as a result. It's the ultimate penalty because murder is the ultimate crime.

So, to any Christian who maintains the death penalty is wrong, I say read the Bible. Yes, the Bible is very clear that every human life is sacred, but it also says that the sin of murder is so heinous and so odious that the death penalty is the only right consequence. Only the death penalty properly emphasizes the gravity of murder, no other punishment comes even close. And never forget, the death penalty is a command of God, it's not an option.

To the agnostic who charges pro-lifers with hypocrisy for supporting capital punishment, I say you misunderstand the pro-life position. The pro-life argument is more than contending every human life is sacred (which is absolutely true) but it goes further and argues it is immoral to take the life of an INNOCENT baby, who is guilty of no crime. Even in the cases of rape it is the never the baby who should be punished for the sin of the rapist. We are saying abortion is wrong because babies are humans and those human babies have committed no crime. Murderers deserve to be executed, babies don't.

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/Spheres-of-Authority/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

In order to understand what the proper role of government is it is important to first see it in light of God's larger order for society. Government is just one of several spheres of authority God has established for the stability of society. Missing that point is the very the problem with Fabianism and Marxism. In the Fabian/Marxist worldview there is only one authority for society and that is the State. Any other sphere of influence must be in subjection to the overarching authority of the State and there are no spheres which are off limits to the State. For example, there is no separation of Church and State in the Marxist system. Every Marxist regime determines if they will allow religion to exist or not, and if so, the government runs it and installs State approved ministers for it. It then controls the messaging, activities and budgets of that religious organization. Any religious group which does not submit to the government of a Marxist regime is forbidden, forced underground and subject to constant threat of discovery and imprisonment.

The Authority of the Individual

The Bible paints a drastically different vision for society (which is in large part why the Scriptures are illegal in Marxist nations). In the Bible there are several spheres of authority which society must recognize and at the top of that list is the authority of the individual. God created man to have authority over his own person, his own body, his own thoughts and his own actions. God created man to be free and intrinsic to that freedom is the authority and autonomy of individualism. While man must submit to other authorities when circumstances occur which places him under the purview of those authorities, he at no time is the slave of any of them. This is the key to understanding the doctrines of personal property rights, the right to free speech and the right to self-defense (even self-defense from the abuse of government). It is also the basis for business ownership and free markets. People should be left alone to engage in the exchange of goods and services freely and to own trademarks, copywrites, intellectual property and institute private businesses to facilitate those engagements as desired.

The Authority of the Family

The next sphere of divinely delegated authority is the family. The family has the right to exist without the endorsement of any other sphere of societal license or sanction. All it needs is a consenting man and a consenting woman along with heavenly approval in order for it to be legitimate and authoritative. Of course, we do not operate that way which is to our great detriment. We now have a government which assumes the power of defining what constitutes a marriage and a family. A marriage is constituted by the uniting of a man and a woman for life, it doesn't matter what the government, courts, educational institutions or liberal denominations think...it's not up to them to decide what a marriage is. Christians handed the State that task and it's a miracle that it has taken this long for the State to take a jackhammer to the institution of the family. There is no need or Biblical mandate for couples to acquire a marriage certificate from the State or even to have the "proclamation" of a minister for a marriage to be real or for a family to be authentic. Of course, people are free to do these things, but they are not needed for legitimacy in God's eyes. So far from this line of thinking have we drifted that a statement like that may even surprise if not outright offend you. Oh sure, I guess most of us can understand that a piece of paper doesn't make a marriage…but not even a minister is needed to make it official? No, the institution of the family predates the institution of the State, the Church, the Law of Moses or the nation of Israel! God recognizes the marriages of heathens and Muslims and Buddhists and even atheists! For example, if a Buddhist couple is converted to Christianity, we do not tell them they must now be remarried in a Christian church, do we? Of course not! Why not? Well…because the family is a unique sphere of authority and is contingent only upon the agreement individuals. What God brings together no man (or institution) has the authority to separate. This authority of the family to exist apart from the purview of those other spheres of authority, being subject only to the consent of autonomous individuals under God and His authority. This is precisely why no human government has the authority to define or redefine the constitution of "marriage" or "family". It is also why no human government has the authority to separate families without a due process proving guilt of criminal activity. This violation of rights was particuarly disgusting during the days of American slavery of Africans.

We need to be reminded today that human government is not responsible for the education of children. Even if governments go so far as to offer educational programs to children, no family is under moral obligation to surrender their children to the State for the purpose of education. Only the family has authority to raise and educate children, any such government function is one only to be exercised with the willful authorization of parents. God ordained the family for the care and education of children, any other imposed system is usurpation of that.

The Authority of Religion

What we call "religion" is also a sphere of authority. Those institutions, bodies, groups and movements which claim to teach Divine or spiritual revelation have authority to speak freely about the nature and will of God and are accountable only to Him for what they say. This does not mean all religions are equally valid of course, it is simply a recognition that no other sphere of authority may interfere with the practice of religion. No man or human government may suppress, shut down or punish religion in any way for speech or conduct which remains within the scope of religious work and activities. This means the State can not ordain ministers, pass out communion or tax the people in an effort to support a church or denomination. The State can also not punish religious ministers for their doctrine, teaching or customs. Again, those who declare "thus sayeth the Lord" are accountable to the Lord for their teaching, no other sphere of authority has license to regulate religion in the New Testament era. Prior to Christ there was a far less distinct difference between religion and State because the people of God lived within a theocracy and every other nation around them acted like they were theocracies as well. God no longer rules His people by way of theocracy and so the distinction between these spheres is now fixed. The government is no longer intertwined with religion and so for example it can not install ministers. Religion no longer dictates to government who should be king or what religious practices must be enforced (or irreligious actions should be punished). These two spheres will remain clearly distinct until Christ returns and establishes His earthly Kingdom.

The Authority of Government

This, finally, brings us to the last remaining sphere of authority…human government. Why did God create human government and equip it with the sword of justice? The answer is simple: Human government exists to protect the other spheres of authority and to punish those who endanger or harm them. That's it. Period. God created human government as a means to protect the authority, rights and liberty of the individual, the family and of religion. It does not exist to feed people, clothe people, educate people, provide healthcare for people, or to provide income for people. It does not exist to police the world, to keep you from doing drugs, to keep you sexually pure or to define for you what marriage is. It does not exist to deliver your mail. Perhaps one could argue that building and paving roads is needed for the government to properly police and defend the people but beyond that it is not up to the government to provide infrastructure. The only purpose of government is to protect individuals, families and religions from violating one another. So, governments are right to have courts, jails, cops and soldiers. Governments are right to use force when force is needed to defend the other spheres of authority or when violators of those spheres need punished. Any laws which human governments institute which equally protect the other spheres of authority are legitimate laws, any laws which violate or usurp the authority of those other God ordained spheres are illegitimate laws. Taxes gathered for the purpose of enforcing illegitimate laws is theft, taxes gathered for the purpose of enforcing legitimate laws is not theft.

As Americans none of this should sound strange to us, this is after all the very worldview which inspired the founders of this nation at the very start. With that said, it should also be fairly noted that the ink wasn't even dried on either the Articles of Confederation or later the Constitution before those very same framers began to violate everything they just wrote. But none the less, despite their inconsistent application of this vision, it was indeed the vision that guided them. It was the vision of God's order for society which inspired them and energized them. If we ever hope for a revival of Biblical spirituality, personal liberty, personal responsibility and true prosperity to happen in America again we had better get laser sharp with these distinctions, just as they were. And we as Christians had better stop leaving this teaching to the secular conservatives on talk radio and Foxnews. I'm very thankful for Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson, but these distinctions need to be made in our Sunday Schools, midweek Bible studies and from our pulpits. Clearly our nation is being tossed to and fro, back and forth, without direction or understanding regarding what should and should not be happening, what people are responsible for and not responsible for, what governments are to do and not do and how religion fits into the picture.

The Church of Jesus Christ is called to be salt and light in society (both of which can be very aggravating when applied to sensitive areas). Preachers are called to declare the whole council of God for the building up of the body and for the purification of society. If the culture is confused about the will of God it had better not be because the people of God are not declaring the Word of God and, sadly, I believe that is exactly the case in America. The solutions we need and the clarity we need is already provided for humanity in the Scriptures. We just need to declare it, over and over and over…and have faith that God will once again provide the fruit we need as a society. These doctrines being respected by ANY nation will bear great fruit. There is no third world nation on this planet that respects these doctrines and is why they remain impoverished. All any nation needs to do to prosper is to acknowledge the will of God for society and to respect the spheres of authority He ordains for it. God would bless them. God will bless us.

Any nation which refuses to respect these spheres (and the God who created them) will be cursed.

It's that simple.

/Blog/Blog/Lex-Rex/Why-God-Created-Government/?link=1&fldKeywords=&fldAuthor=&fldTopic=0

In the previous article I wrote about the dire need we have for preachers to boldly stand in their pulpits and declare the full council of God even when God is speaking about "politics". The way governments are run, the objectives governments are seeking to fulfil and the way in which governments treat citizens are all of high importance to God according to the Bible and so these issues should be clearly taught to His people in local churches. Preachers have no right to skim or skip over them.

At the outset of this series I think it wise to address an issue that many of you might simply assume to be true, but one that is actually far less settled in the minds of some right-wing and libertarian Christians than you might realize. I'm referring to the question regarding if we need a government at all...

Let's cut to the chase, the answer to that question is YES, we absolutely need a government!

It needs to be clearly proclaimed to extreme libertarians and hard-core left-wing Marxists alike that GOD created and ordained human government. Human government was instituted by God, is intended for the glory of God and was created for our good. It was HIS invention and at no point in history has He relinquished His sovereign claim over human government. It is not a construct which we are free to toss away nor is it one we are free to independently control. Government is HIS. He created it, owns it and still claims it. The Bible cannot be clearer regarding the Divine origin of human government, see Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, Titus 3:1, Daniel 2:20-21, Psalm 22:28, Proverbs 8:15, John 19:11, Luke 20:25 along with a host of other passages space here simply will not allow us to fully document.

Government is God's idea; no Christian can avoid that conclusion.

But why? What is so great about government? Doesn't the Bible also call people sinful? Isn't it true that sinners' sin and sinners in power have constantly abused that power to oppress, enslave and slaughter people? All of that is true, yet God still commands people to submit to a governing authority…why? Well, for starters, the alternative would be far worse than the most dystopic authoritarian nightmare ever to hit man. If you think authoritarianism is brutal, you can't even begin to imagine how brutal things would become in anarchy.

The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans described God appointed government (which does NOT encompass every regime in power by the way, more on that distinction in future installments) as God's servant who acts to reward good and punish evil. That point cannot be overstated. There must be an organized, appointed, overwhelming and punishing force which actively suppresses evil in society or else evil will eat humanity alive. And it is the weak and defenseless in particular which will suffer the most without God appointed government. Children, women, minorities, the disabled…none of them would be safe without the rule of law and a government able to enforce it justly. At this point in my life I would like to think I could deal with most hostile threats to my family. If some wild apocalyptic scenario unfolds this week for some reason, I'm still young enough, strong enough, well-armed enough and down right mean enough to put up one heck of a fight if need be…but what about my mom? What about your mom? What about those who are not armed, not strong and not mean? What about the old widow who is nobody's mom and yet owns 15 acres of prime, fertile farmland? How long would she hang onto that prime 15 acres on her own before pillagers took it from her?

God has ordained human government to exist in order to protect the rights and liberties of the very weakest of society from the greed of the very strongest.

Even the most wicked regime on earth, perhaps North Korea for example, serves that purpose better than if North Korea had no government at all. No doubt there would be some temporary relief if that regime fell apart and anarchy was unleashed, but that relief would be short and then that people would be subjected to even greater horrors, atrocities and starvation. We pray for the destruction of the North Korean regime in order for a God appointed, righteous government to take its place.

God ordained government exists to punish evil and to promote liberty, to suppress oppression and reward the good. Any call for anarchy is of the devil and incredibly naïve.

So let's get that straight, we need a government and God institutes them for our good. There is no room at all for anarchy in the Biblical Christian worldview (see, Romans 13:2).