A Presuppositional Evaluation of Dr. Greg Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic

Introduction to Dr. Greg Boyd and "The Cruciform Standard"

Many people love and admire Dr. Greg Boyd. For those who don't know him, he is a famous theologian, pastor, and author. He is currently the senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota and is the author of countless books, articles, and blog posts. Superscholar.org lists him as one of the twenty most influential living Christian scholars of the 20th century. 

Since he is so well known, I thought I would familiarize myself by checking out Boyd's Reknew.org blog. Because of my philosophy and theology background, I was curious to get to know his thought. 

As I read through his blog, I could see why many Christians follow him. He is thoughtful, insightful, and innovative. At the same time, I could also see why it would be difficult for Christians to discern his theology problems. He received his Ph.D. magna cum laude from Princeton Theological Seminary. He received his Master of Divinity degree cum laude from Yale Divinity School and his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Minnesota. He is pretty darn smart. 

A series of his blog posts from May 1, 2012, May 2, 2012, May 9, 2012, May 16, 2012 caught my attention. These posts, I believe, give insight into the way his mind works. I believe they capture the foundational process and presuppositions that permeate all his work. 

It sounds like his faith took quite a beating from his professors in college and in Princeton and Yale. I think that the attack on his faith caused Boyd to separate his head from his heart. He has difficulty with the Bible and Biblical Reformed Christianity, yet he claims to have a deep love for Jesus Christ.

I guess he didn't have the resources to withstand the onslaught to his intellectual faith. Yet, somehow he emerged with what appears to be "faith" in Jesus Christ. It is my impression that he has spent his professional life trying to reconcile how to believe in Jesus Christ while at the same time, not believing in the certainty of Scripture. It also strikes me that he's trying to be the smart kid in the class by coming up with theological innovations.

I am writing this article for two reasons. The first is for my benefit. As the Bible says, "iron sharpens iron." I want to exercise my intellect by evaluating someone as educated as Dr. Greg Boyd. I intend to apply the Presuppositional Apologetics that I have been learning from Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, and Dr. K. Scott Oliphint.

The second reason I am writing this article is because of Boyd's prolific influence. He is a famous theologian admired by many Christians. Many evangelical pastors even respect him. However, I believe Boyd's theology is fundamentally flawed. It is difficult for those in the pew to discern the problems with what he is propagating so I will try my hand evaluating a portion of this thought.

In the blogs mentioned above, Boyd fleshes out what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." I will mainly focus on the blog post he wrote on May 16, 2012, titled, Scripture's God-Breathed Imperfections. I think this post best articulates Boyd's presuppositional basis for his theology.

I contend that "The Cruciform Standard" is fundamentally flawed, inconsistent, intellectually confused, unbiblical, and, to be blunt, somewhat deceptive. I do not doubt his sincerity, but a person of Boyd's stature and influence has a moral responsibility to teach sound doctrine. I aim to demonstrate that "The Cruciform Standard" is anything but sound.

Dueling Definitions

The Definition of Biblical Infallibility

The first red flag was how Boyd defined "infallible." While "infallible" may have other nuanced meanings in different contexts, it has a specific meaning when used in connection with Biblical theology.  

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "infallible" as:

1: incapable of error: UNERRING

an infallible memory

2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint: CERTAIN

an infallible remedy

3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines "infallibility" as:

INFALLIBIL'ITY

INFAL'LIBLE, adjective [Latin fallo.]

1. Not fallible; not capable of erring; entirely exempt from liability to mistake; applied to persons. No man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative of God only.

2. Not liable to fail, or to deceive confidence; certain; as infallible evidence; infallible success.

To whom he showed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs--

The Greek word τεκμηρίοις (tekmēriois) is translated as "infallible" in the King James Version of the Bible in Acts 1:1-3:

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ESV (emphasis mine)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines the Greek term.

STRONGS NT 5039: τεκμήριον

τεκμήριον, τεκμηριου, τό (from τεκμαίρω to show or prove by sure signs; from τέκμαρ a sign), from Aeschylus and Herodotus down, that from which something is surely and plainly known; an indubitable evidence, a proof (Hesychius τεκμήριον. σημεῖον ἀληθές): Acts 1:3 (Wis. 5:11; 3Macc. 3:24).

The term "infallible" in the context of Biblical theology means "incapable of error." Thus, the doctrine of Biblical infallibility means that the Bible is presupposed to be incapable of error. This is in line with what the Bible says of itself. For example:

This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him. 2 Samuel 22:31, ESV

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Proverbs 30:5, ESV

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. John 17:17, ESV

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15, ESV.

Dr. Boyd's Definition of Infallible

Rather than taking the Bible as what God revealed about Himself or use "infallible" as it is typically used in Biblical theology, Dr. Boyd uses a synonym rather than a definition when he defines "infallible." He writes:

Does this mean that we must reject biblical infallibility? It all depends on what you mean by "infallible." "Infallible" means "unfailing," and for something to "fail" or "not fail" depends on the standard you use to measure it.

While some dictionaries use "unfailing" as a sub-definition, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary lists "unfailing" as a synonym for "infallible." The Bible can be described as "unfailing,"but it does not have the same meaning as "not capable of error." 

Indeed, Boyd is correct when he writes: 

It all depends on what you mean by "infallible."

No wonder he equivocates on his definition of "infallible." Biblical infallibility means that the Bible is "not capable of error." 

Throughout these blog posts, what Boyd means by Biblical infallibility is that the Bible is full of error, and another standard must be presupposed. That is why on May 9, 2012, he titles his blog post, "Why Christ, not Scripture, is Our Ultimate Foundation." He wrote:

If the reason you believe is anchored in your confidence that Scripture is "God-breathed," then your faith can't help but be threatened every time you encounter a discrepancy, an archeological problem, or a persuasive historical-critical argument that a portion of the biblical narrative may not be historically accurate. 

For Boyd, Biblical infallibility means the Bible is not only capable of mistakes, it is filled with errors; hence he has to redefine "infallible."

Boyd's Most Important Question

Dr. Boyd asks perhaps the most critical question, not only of these blog posts but of all Christendom:

So when you confess Scripture is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing? 

This is the point, isn't it? If the Bible is "infallible," it is the standard. If it is not, then there must be another infallible standard by which the Bible is judged. Before I get into how Dr. Boyd answers his question, it is essential to review what a "standard" is.

The Biblical Canon

The Bible is composed of books that make up the "canon" of Scripture. The word "canon" comes from the Hebrew word "qaneh" and the Greek word "kanon." Both refer to the standard by which other things are measured. 

By definition, the Bible is the standard by which all other standards are measured. The standard must be infallible, or else it is not the standard. If another standard measures a standard, it cannot be the Ultimate Standard. This means that the standard you use to measure the Bible is the Ultimate Standard, and the Bible is not.

I Answer Boyd’s Question

When I confess Scripture is "infallible," I presupposed the Bible itself is the Standard in and of itself. I presuppose what the Bible says about itself, that it is the self-attesting revelation of the self-existing Trinity. This one Standard measures all other standards. There can be no different standard that measures the Scriptures. If there were, it would be the Ultimate Standard. Since the Bible is the self-revelation of the self-existing Triune God, the Book itself reveals the mind of Ultimate Standard; God Himself. Not only does God reveal His mind, but He also reveals His character, His morality, His rationality, His sovereignty over creation, His aseity (self-existence), that He is One and Three, etc. 

The revelation of God gives the preconditions necessary for science, morality, and rationality. In the words of Dr. Cornelius Van Til:

The argument for Christianity must therefore be that of presupposition. With Augustine it must be maintained that God’s revelation is the sun from which all other light derives. The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself. - Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (P&R, 3rd ed., 1967), 298.

This is how Biblical Christianity answers Boyd's question. To answer this question in any other way means there is a higher standard than the Bible. Furthermore, if the Bible is not presumed infallible, nothing can be proved whatsoever.

Boyd - A Standard Unto Himself

The question that needs to be asked of Boyd is: 

So when you confess Scripture is "fallible," what standard are you presupposing? 

Instead of the Bible being the Standard, Boyd presupposes four measures that prove that the Bible is "A Shaky Foundation for Why We Believe." In the words of Boyd:

If your standard is modern science, for example, I'm afraid you're going to have a very hard time holding onto your confidence in Scripture, because last I heard, scientists were pretty sure the sky wasn't a dome that was "hard as a molten mirror" (Job 37:18) as it held up water (Gen.1:7) with windows that could be opened so it could rain (Gen. 7:11). So too, if your standard is perfect historical accuracy, or perfect consistency, you're going to sooner or later run into trouble as well for similar reasons. In fact, I would argue that you're going to run into problems if your standard is even uniformly perfect theology. For example, we instinctively interpret references to Yahweh riding on clouds and throwing down lightning bolts to be metaphorical (e.g. Ps. 18:14; 68:4; 104:3). But ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this. They were simply mistaken.

Boyd presupposes four standards that show the Bible's fallibility; 

• Science

• Perfect historical accuracy 

• Perfect consistency 

• Uniformly perfect theology

It makes no sense to have four ultimate standards; otherwise, there would be a competition amongst his four criteria to see which standard has the right to be the maximum standard. Behind each of these standards is a hidden presupposition that must come to light.

If each of Boyd's proposed standards is not the Standard, what is? If it is not the Bible, as we have seen, then what is? It can be none other than Reason itself. While Boyd does not say it overtly, he presupposes that by Reason we can use science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology to show that the Bible is fallible. He presupposes the infallibility of Human Reason; otherwise, we could not use science or know what perfect historical accuracy is, or have the ability to detect perfect consistency or uniformly perfect theology. 

Therefore, Boyd is presuppositionally a humanist. He "puts God on the dock" to borrow a phrase from C.S. Lewis. There is no middle ground. Either God and His revealed word are the Ultimate Standard or Human Reason is. 

Boyd is not the first to propose Human Reason as the Ultimate Authority. This presupposition goes right back to the Garden of Eden when Satan tempted Eve by asking: 

Did God actually say…? Genesis 3:1, ESV 

From that moment on, the battle between presuppositions began, is the Ultimate Authority God or Man?

In the end, Boyd has presupposed that his reason is sufficient to determine that science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology render the Bible fallible. Since this is so, Boyd presupposes himself as the Ultimate Standard. The standard he uses is his rationality to measure the Bible, and by his reason, he finds it lacking. 

Evaluating The Tools Of Reason

Since Reason is Boyd's Ultimate Standard, what is the function of science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology then? In the end, they are the practical tools that Boyd uses to measure the Bible.

The questions I want to ask Boyd are these: 

• How do you know that your Reason is accurate? 

• By what standard do you determine whether your Reason is true or not? 

• Why are you willing to give your Reason the status of Ultimacy over the Bible? 

• How can you be that confident in your Reason? 

• And if you are so confident, what standard are you using to determine that your Reason should be the Ultimate Standard? 

Boyd can't use Reason itself to measure his own Reason. That would be absurd. He cannot use science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology as measuring tools of his Reason. If he did, then isn't he begging a serious question? How can the tools of Reason be used to measure whether Reason itself is accurate?

• By what standard do we measure the accuracy of science?

• How do we know that something has perfect historical accuracy?

• What standard do we presuppose to determine whether something has perfect consistency?

• And finally, what standard do we using to measure uniformly perfect theology?

Suppose we presuppose Reason as our Ultimate Standard. In that case, we come back to Boyd's original question but we need to apply it to Reason rather than Scripture, "So when you confess Reason is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?"

We come back to the problem of the Ultimate Standard. If Boyd presupposes we can use his tools to discredit the Bible, the same question can be asked, how does he know that his Ultimate Standard is accurate or not? If you use another Ultimate Standard, then that is the Ultimate Standard and not the standard he is evaluating.

In the end, Dr. Boyd has no way of knowing whether his Ultimate Standard is Ultimate or not. His epistemology (how does he know that he knows?) collapses in a series of self-defeating presuppositions. In essence, by rejecting the self-attesting Bible as his Ultimate Standard, he has no way of knowing anything. 

The "Barth" Connection

Boyd writes:

Does this mean that we must reject biblical infallibility? It all depends on what you mean by "infallible."

Since Boyd believes innovation is a virtue, he proposes an innovative way out of these theological and epistemological problems. 

What does Boyd mean by "infallible?" He believes the solution to all his problems is found in what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." In his blog on May 1, 2012, he posted an article called, "Christ-centered or Cross-centered." In essence, Boyd is trying to refine Karl Barth's "Christ-centered" theology. 

Boyd’s problem with Barth's "Christ-centered" theology, according to Boyd, is that:

the Jesus of the Gospels provides too wide a target, so to speak. His teachings and actions can be interpreted a lot of different ways, depending on what you want to emphasize. 

In other words, Boyd is uncomfortable when others interpret the Bible in ways he doesn't like. 

It should be noted that Boyd does not repudiate Barth's theology. He opens the blog post on May 1, 2012, by saying 

Thanks largely to the work of Karl Barth, we have over the last half-century witnessed an increasing number of theologians advocating some form of a Christ-centered (or, to use a fancier theological term, a "Christocentric") theology.

While an evaluation of Karl Barth’s theology goes beyond the scope of my critique, Boyd greatly admires and imitates his mentor in many ways. I suspect that if you genuinely want to understand Boyd's theology, you must first understand Karl Barth. I recommend reading, The New Modernism, An Appraisal of the Theology of Barth and Brunner by Dr. Cornelius Van Til.

Introducing "The Cruciform Solution"

Because Barth's "Christ-centered" theology leaves too much room for others to use Jesus in ways that make Boyd uncomfortable, he proposes what he calls "The Cruciform Standard." Just as Barth believed that we must interpret the Bible through the Christ, so Boyd offers that we must interpret Scripture through the cross of Christ. 

Dr. Boyd writes:

If we accept the view that all theological concepts should be centered on the cross, then it means that our understanding of "biblical infallibility," as well as "biblical inspiration," should be centered on the cross.

For Barth, Christ is the interpretive principle by which we must interpret the Scripture. For Boyd, he proposes that we should interpret the Bible through the cross of Christ. Both agree that the presupposition by which you measure the Bible is not the Bible itself but a different standard we learned from the Bible.

For Boyd, the Bible certainly is not the Ultimate Infallible Standard because Reason, through the tools of science, history, the criteria of perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology, has shown him this to be so.

How The Cruciform Standard Crucifies Itself

Boyd believes he has found an innovative way around the problems of Scriptural "infallibility." His solution is to make the cross the infallible standard by which the Scripture must be interpreted and understood. Perhaps this is why he originally defined "infallibility" as "unfailing" rather than "incapable of error." What Christian would affirm that the cross will fail us?

The problem with “The Cruciform Standard” as the infallible standard is that our knowledge of the cross comes from the Bible. In other words, Boyd learned about the Ultimate Standard from a fallible book. This leads to many theological and philosophical problems for Boyd.

Here are some questions that reveal his confusion:

• If the Bible is flawed, how can we know that the information we have about the cross is not based on one of the faulty sections of the Bible?

• How can an "infallible" standard be based upon a "fallible" source?

• How can "The Cruciform Standard" be a higher standard than the Bible if the source of "The Cruciform Standard" comes from the Bible?

• So when you confess "The Cruciform Standard" is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?

• Why don't you use Reason and Reason's tools, i.e., science, perfect historical accuracy, perfect consistency, and uniformly perfect theology to evaluate Cruciform as you did with the Bible?

The Conclusion of the Cruciform Standard

The conclusion is that Dr. Boyd's Cruciform Standard is fundamentally flawed. He is arbitrary in his application of Reason, and its tools. He uses them on the Bible, but not on his Cruciform Standard. 

The bottom line is that "The Cruciform Standard" is unbiblical. While it sounds spiritual to use a "cross-centered" theology, this is not how God used the cross in history. The cross is how God redeems the world through Christ, not the interpretive principle we are to use to understand the Bible.

Van Til to the Rescue

Barth mistakenly used "Christ" as the interpretive principle of the Bible. This is the problem with neo-orthodox theology. It uses Biblical terms and redefines them to suit the presuppositions of the theologian. As Dr. Oliphint wrote to me in a personal email on October 5, 2020:

Van Til's point is not — is never — to reinterpret or redefine Scripture. Never. So, what could he mean?... To "begin with" the ontological Trinity is to begin with God as He is in Himself — the a se Triune God of Scripture. That means that in our reasoning, in our thinking, in our living, in our entire lives, we recognize, as Paul put it to the Athenians, God is never in need of anything. Instead, He is the "interpreter" of all things. All things are from, through and to Him alone, and not to us. The "ontological" Trinity is the Triune God in Himself, and completely self-sufficient. Then, given that truth, we begin to see the centrality of Christ as the Mediator, as the One who reveals the Father to us, and as the One who sends His Spirit to and for the church.

The alternative is to begin with a dependent god, a god who is subject to our every choice, a god whose control of the universe is only partial.

So, CVT's main point was an ontological one, not a redemptive one. He wanted to remind us of who God is in Himself, and urge us to think of all things in light of His character, in the first place, and not in light of ourselves, or even of our relationship to Him, in the first place.

I hope this helps.

K. Scott Oliphint

Professor of Apologetics

Westminster Theological Seminary

PO Box 27009

Philadelphia, PA 19118

The Bible does not just reveal Christ. The Bible is the self-revelation of God who self-exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This raises questions about Dr. Boyd's understanding of the Trinity. God is not just the Son. He is also the Father and the Spirit. The Son's role is the Mediator, who reveals the Father and sends His Spirit, not how we interpret the Bible.

Presuppositionalism - The Way Out

There is a solution to Boyd's theological confusion. This solution not only solves his question about Biblical infallibility, but it solves his problems with the problem of evil, the search for the historical Jesus, his issues with the anger of God in the Old Testament, and a whole host of problems with which Dr. Boyd is wrestling.

What is that solution? The answer can be found in the original question, Boyd asks: 

So when you confess Scripture is "infallible," what standard are you presupposing?

He must presuppose the Bible as the only "infallible" Standard! Anything else is intellectual, theological, ethical, and philosophical suicide. The only way out is to presuppose the only Ultimate Standard, the self-attesting Bible that reveals the self-existing Trinity. 

I encourage Boyd and anyone ascribing to his theology to take a serious look at the Presuppositional Apologetics of Dr. Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. While Dr. Van Til can be credited with first articulating Presuppositional Apologetics, Dr. Greg Bahnsen made Dr. Van Til accessible to the person in the pew. 

The Superiority of Presuppositional Apologetics Over "The Cruciform Standard"

Presuppositional Apologetics (PA) talks about the "myth of neutrality." Boyd is caught in the myth that Christians can use Reason as their Ultimate Standard and that the unbeliever will be won for Christ by Reason. PA exposes the humanism behind using Reason as the Standard, as I have demonstrated in this blog post. I used PA to do an internal critique of Boyd's claims and show that his "Cruciform Standard" is no standard at all.

PA takes the Bible's self-attesting claims seriously. While Boyd wants to keep the Bible as a source of knowledge, why would he want to keep a source that is, according to him, fallible? The Bible claims to be the perfect word of the Lord. If it is not, God is a liar, for He claims something in the Bible that is not true.

If the Bible is a flawed book, how can we trust what it reveals? The Bible claims to be the self-revelation of the self-existing Trinitarian God. If the Bible is fallible, how do we know that God's supposed revelation is even real? The best that Dr. Boyd can claim is "reasonable certainty." In Boyd's own words:

I feel I have very good historical, philosophical, and personal reasons for believing that the historical Jesus was pretty much as he's described in the Gospels. I also feel I have very good reasons for accepting the NT's view that Jesus was, and is, the Son of God, the definitive revelation of God, and the Savior of the world. I, of course, can't be certain of this, but I'm confident enough to make the decision to put my trust in Christ, and live my life as his disciple. (emphasis not mine)

How different this is from what the Bible says of itself. For example:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,  it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4, ESV (emphasis mine)

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV (emphasis mine)

How The Bible Makes Reason Possible

Science

As Dr. Greg Bahnsen proved, Presuppositional Apologetics lays the groundwork for the preconditions of intelligibility. He showed the absurdity of using science to measure Scripture since science itself cannot exist apart from Scripture's "infallibility."

Perfect Historical Accuracy

Boyd presupposes a concept he called "perfect historical accuracy." Apart from the Bible, how can Boyd know that anything is perfectly historically accurate? Unless he is omniscient, it is impossible for a human being to claim to know history perfectly. The Bible reveals that God is not only present throughout all of history; he is the creator of history. (Ephesians 1:11) History does not judge the Bible; the Bible reveals an entirely accurate account of history. The Bible judges history. Suppose there is a historical discrepancy between a human document and the Biblical account. In that case, the only logical conclusion is that the infallible Bible is accurate and the fallible human information is false.

Perfect Consistency

The Bible has a perfect consistency. It is arbitrary to claim the Bible does not. Boyd offers no proof of inconsistencies in the Scripture. Even if he or anyone else put forth a supposed inconsistency, because of the Bible’s self-proclaimed infallibility, we know before hand that there is no inconsistency in the Scripture. We do know, however, that human reason is fallible and limited. It comes down to trust; do we trust human reason or God’s infallible word?

Perfect Theology

Finally, PA solves his problem of seeking "perfect theology." Apart from the Bible, how would Boyd know what constitutes "perfect theology?" Apart from the Bible, how does he know that the cross is "perfect theology" as well? The Bible has uniformly perfect theology from beginning to end; Boyd does not. 

It should be noted that the examples Boyd uses in his blog post of May 16, 2012, to show the Bible fallible are poorly done. Boyd writes:

…last I heard, scientists were pretty sure the sky wasn’t a dome that was “hard as a molten mirror” (Job 37:18) as it held up water (Gen.1:7) with windows that could be opened so it could rain (Gen. 7:11).

…we instinctively interpret references to Yahweh riding on clouds and throwing down lightning bolts to be metaphorical (e.g. Ps. 18:14; 68:4; 104:3). But ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this. They were simply mistaken.

How does he know whether the “ancient biblical authors, along with everybody else in the Ancient Near East, viewed God and/or the gods as literally doing things like this?” The Biblical authors obviously understood metaphor, poetry, similes, hyperboles, and so on. If they didn’t, why else would these literary devises be all throughout the Bible His examples are arbitrary and unsubstantiated, and easily proved wrong.

It's like claiming that since the Bible declares the "trees of the field shall clap their hands," scientifically proves the Bible to be fallible since we know that trees don't have hands. Quite frankly, I'm appalled to see Boyd take pop shots at the Bible like this. It reminds me of the hostile atheistic philosophy professors I had in college. 

A Challenge to Dr. Boyd

I wonder if Dr. Greg Boyd will ever read my blog post. Perhaps he will. If I had the opportunity, I would challenge him to answer, or at least acknowledge what his Ultimate Authority is. I demonstrated that his Ultimate Authority is himself. In other words, Boyd is his own Ultimate Authority rather than the self-existing Trinitarian God who has revealed Himself through the self-attesting Scriptures. 

Dr. Boyd, 

I am calling you to repent. It is time to stop putting human reason or your reason or anything else above the word of God. I understand that it is not popular to presuppose the Bible to be the "infallible" word of God. I understand that professors throughout your "education," destroyed your confidence in the Bible. It is time to decide who you will believe. Will you accept the foolish self-revelation of the Triune God in the infallible Bible, or will you believe the "wisdom of men?" As 1 Corinthians 1:20 says:

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ESV

To use any other standard than the Bible is to judge God and His infallible word. As Jesus clearly said to Satan in Luke 4:12:

You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. ESV

I pray that you come to the Reformed faith, presume the Bible to be the Ultimate Standard, reject Barth's presuppositional basis, and become genuinely Trinitarian. 

A Challenge to Disciples of Dr. Boyd

Finally, I am calling those who subscribe to Boyd's teaching to take a closer look. My blog post is only one aspect of his confused teaching. Others have written about the confusion behind Open Theism in books like Bound Only Once. 

Resources for Further Study

I offer a link the following resources for anyone who would like to pursue this matter further. These resources will not only enable you to see where a person or a theologian has veered from the truth; you will be able to think from a truly Biblical perspective. I believe Presuppositional Apologetics is the best articulation of the method given in Scripture on how to defend the faith. Again, I hope that I have demonstrated an adequate PA application in this blog post by evaluating Dr. Boyd's Cruciform Standard.

 Sola Gloria Deo

Bias, Presuppositions, and Intellectual Honesty

The Unbiased Illusion

I was listening to someone recently who claimed he wasn't biased. He believed he was objective and not influenced by anything but logic, reason, and science. He said this in the context of why he supported his particular candidate for president. He couldn't understand how people could be so stupid as to vote for the other candidate. 

Sound familiar?

His Facebook page is filled with memes that make fun of the other side. He has articles that definitively prove that his stance on whatever was correct. What was interesting was all the views he expressed were precisely in line with his party affiliation. He dismissed any challenges calling his view into question.

What bothered me was that he was completely unaware of his own biases. I do not find this person to be unique. Most people I encounter these days are heavily influenced by information that is anything but objective. Nowadays, "Fake news" is defined as whatever the opposition is reporting. 

Aids to Bias

This is a serious problem with the advancement of algorithms that track and feed us according to our online behavior. Documentaries such as Social Dilemma reveal the dark side of social media that provides people only the information they want to see.

The truth is everyone has a bias. We all have things that we presuppose to be true. A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset. Everyone lives by faith, even the most ardent scientist. How can this be? The scientist believes many things before he or she even starts an experiment. Would you like some examples?

“A presupposition is something that is tacitly assumed to be valid from the outset.”

The Illusion of Objective Science

Science is based upon observation. By observation, I mean things that can be experienced by the senses, especially sight, though smell, taste, sound, and touch can and do play a significant role. Let's take sight, for example.

What exactly are you "seeing" when you see an object? Light hits the retina. The retina converts the information into electrical impulses that are sent along the optical nerve. The occipital lobe then converts the signals. The brain then takes this data and interprets it according to how the brain is hardwired and shaped through experience.  Once the information is "seen," the person has to analyze the information further to make sense of it.

Newborn babies or blind people who recently received their sight have to grow in their understanding of the sense data they are "seeing." In my example, we've come a long way from light hitting the retina to a person understanding the data. I haven't even touched on what exactly is light, and whether it is absorbed, reflected, or generated by objects in and of themselves. 

As you can see, something as familiar as "seeing" is based upon a multitude of presuppositions. How do we know we are "seeing" the object as it exists after the information has gone through processes in nature and our brain? This is just one assumption the scientist has to have to do science.

I could go on about the uniformity of nature and how the philosopher David Hume called the very foundations of science into question. On what basis do we know that events in the past will consistently perform the same way in the future? Hume says we don't know. Science has to assume that they do; otherwise, how can we do science? In other words, the scientist has to accept a set of presuppositions to do science. So even the scientist lives by faith. And if this is true of the revered scientist, how much more for the rest of us mortals.

I started this post talking about a person who believed he was objective in all his views. If something as precise as science has presuppositions, think about how many assumptions someone must have to hold a particular political viewpoint. Indeed, everyone truly lives by faith. Will a person be honest about their presuppositions or be intellectually dishonest by denying he has any?

There is only one way out of this labyrinth. It is to be intentional and honest about your presupposition. One of the most critical tasks we have as human beings is to dis-cover our presuppositional bias. What do you hold to be true? What do you take for granted to assert that any of your views are correct? Have you ever examined your presuppositional assumptions? 

How To Discover Your Presuppositions

The late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias boils down the most critical questions to origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. How you answer these questions will help you identify your bias, presuppositions, and what you take for granted in your thinking.

Origins deal with the question of from where do we come? Some say matter always existed. Others say that God created us. Did we evolve over millions of years? Or were we created by God as talked about in the book of Genesis? What about the Big Bang? How you answer the question of origins will help determine the presuppositions you hold to make sense out of life. As you answer this question, you can discover why you think the way you do.

The next question that will help you identify your presuppositional foundation is the question of meaning. What is the meaning of life? Is it to get rich, help others, serve God, win, and propagate children? Perhaps you do not believe there is any ultimate meaning in life. That in itself is a presupposition by which you interpret reality, assuming there is any such thing as "reality." Perhaps "life is but a dream" as suggested in the childhood song, Row Row Row Your Boat.

Another question that will help you identify your assumptions of life is the question of morality. What is right, and what is wrong? What standard do you use to determine either one? That standard is your presupposition. Some use the Bible; others use intuition; still, others say that "might makes right." There are many ways to answer this question. How you determine what is moral and immoral will help you understand yourself better. 

The last question that Ravi Zacharias identifies is the question of destiny. This question completes the loop. Where did we come from is the question of origins. What is the meaning of life is the question of truth. What is right and wrong is the question of morality. Destiny answers the question of where we are headed. Do you think we are continually in the evolutionary process of getting better? Do you believe there are heaven and hell? Do you think we are, as the song says, "Dust in the Wind," that we are headed anywhere, that we are molecules falling through space with no final destination? 

These questions not only help you identify your presuppositional basis, but they also help predict how you will think on a multitude of issues. Those who assume God's existence, that we are created in the image of God, and that life begins with conception will be against abortion. Others who believe that human happiness is the ultimate meaning of life may think that a woman's right to choose is more important than giving up a career to raise a child. Many presuppositional factors will weigh in on how you answer abortion or any other problem for that matter.

Being Honest

The point of this post is to call people to intellectual honesty concerning their presuppositions. It is dishonest to say that you have no bias, that all your views are based on science, that you are correct in everything, or that you see everything clearly and everyone else is just wrong. I implore you to have the intellectual decency to admit that you have a bias just like everyone else. I challenge you to take time to think through what your presuppositional foundation is. 

There are benefits to this intellectual honesty. You will be able to evaluate news sources better. It's not enough to have someone else tell you something is "Fake news." Imagine not only being able to spot where a news story is factually wrong, but also to understand the news source's bias. For example, a liberal feminist will report the news differently from a fundamentalist Christian or a conservative Trump supporter. Why?

Intentional Presuppositional Honesty

I have intentionally chosen my presuppositional basis. What is it? I hold that the Bible is the only authoritative standard to answer origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Biblical authors claim their message to be from God around 1,900 times. The Bible declares "God said" or "Thus saith the Lord" over 4,000 times. The Bible is the only self-attesting book in existence. There is no way around its claim to be the word of God. Isn't this circular reasoning? Or course it is. But it is intellectually honest reasoning. God Himself attests that the Bible is His word. 

An intellectually honest person will admit that all other theories or philosophies beg the question as well. For science, truth is only that which you can empirically verify. Of course, that statement itself cannot be empirically verified, thereby showing that science's very foundation is self-begging and self-defeating. To believe that government or popular vote determines truth is untenable, especially considering that governments and populations have committed horrible atrocities in the past. How would we even know that an event is an atrocity unless we had a standard outside of ourselves to determine that it is atrocious or not? This kind of reasoning is circular as well. “We know something is an atrocity because we know it is wrong.”

It is impossible to account for logic, reason, or science apart from God as He revealed Himself in the Bible. Without Him, you cannot prove anything. Otherwise, we are left in a meaningless universe devoid of meaning. We are "Dust in the Wind," and dust cannot account for anything, not even itself. 

The Bible reveals that God is the only self-existing Being who exists in Unity and Complexity. He reveals Himself as the Author of life (origins), the Definer of the meaning of life (meaning), the Law Giver (morality), and the Giver of eternal life (destiny). These questions cannot be adequately answered apart from Scripture.

Apart from Scripture, there is no way we can know our origins. If we are naked apes that evolved from stardust, there is no way to account for meaning. Molecules in motion have no sense. When morality is not rooted in God's character, it is subject to the whims of humanity, and those whims turn out bloody, as history repeatedly shows. The Bible tells us where we are headed, either to heaven or to hell.

Paul says in Colossians 2:8 that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Jesus Christ. In Him is where intellectual honesty starts and where it ends. I choose Him as my presupposition foundation. How about you?

How To Make Black Lives Matter

Thesis:

Making black lives matter can only happen when our definition and understanding of justice begins with the submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and obedience to His word as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

Introduction

Black lives matter has become a significant movement in the United States. You cannot drive far without seeing a BLM sign posted in the front yard of America's lawn. I've seen them in the most affluent, to some of the poorest neighborhoods in Connecticut. The people who post them are of all colors, creeds, and socio-economic statuses. People are horrified at the blatant acts of violence against the black community and want to do their part.

Since I don't have a front yard, I thought I would do my part by showing how to truly make black lives matter. I will argue that BLM's underlying principles only have meaning if understood from a Biblical worldview. Concepts such as human dignity, justice, and societal change are meaningless unless you start from the revelation God gave about Himself in the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. I contend that the Black Lives Matter movement, while well-intentioned, cannot sustain their cause unless and until they work toward change by beginning with the conversion of individuals and nations to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Foundation of Human Worth

Created in God's Imagine

There is only one Book that proclaims the truth about humanity. In Genesis 1:26+27 Bible boldly states:

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." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26&27

The Bible does not say some human beings are better than others. It doesn't say one gender or ethnicity has less value than another. All human beings are created in God's image, starting with the original humans, Adam and Eve. Being made in God's image includes people with greater or lesser amounts of melanin in their skin. 

Because of this claim, all human beings have infinite value. We have worth because God created us in His image. No one has the authority to claim intrinsic superiority over another human being. To start from any other religious, theological, philosophical, or theoretical basis, other than the Scripture creates racism, classism, sexism, and every other negative "ism" there is. Take the God of the Bible out of the equation, and you have humans competing against humans. In other words, "survival of the fittest." 

The Folly of Evolution

Contrary to popular opinion, Evolution is not based upon science. At best, it is a theory and not a very coherent one at that. Science is based upon observable events that can be repeated for verification. While we can observe selective breeding, we do not see amebas transitioning into higher and more complex life forms. Simple single-celled amebas do not gain complexity and information through natural selection. The very thought of it is not only unscientific; it is illogical. Yet, so many believe in Evolution, and it is taught in public schools as if it is science.

If Evolution is true, what basis does anyone have to say one life matters over another? If all humanity is, are sophisticated animals, what does it matter if the stronger kills the weaker? Instead of repudiating this, people should be celebrating the advancement of Evolution in motion. The very thought is ludicrous.

The only viable alternative to faith in Evolution is the truth, as revealed by God in the Bible. Acts 17:26 says we all are of "one blood." We are one blood because God created our original parents, Adam and Eve. Human beings are made in the image of God regardless of the color of their skin, their socio-economic circumstance, where they live, or how they live.

The Cross and Human Value

Even more significant than the creation of humanity in God's image is the revelation of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. The Bible reveals that the second Person of the Trinity became a Man to provide a way to be made right with God. God the Father sent His only-begotten Son to be crucified on the cross as a substitute atonement for sin. 

Nothing gives humanity more meaning and dignity than God becoming a human being and willingly laying down His life for sinners. Jesus Christ didn't die for sophisticated animals. He died for fallen human beings made in the image of God. The Bible says 

For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

The invitation is given to all humanity, regardless of skin color. Jesus told His disciples to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15) The "whole creation" refers to all humanity from the indigenous tribes in South America to the super-rich of Silicon Valley. 

Why do black lives matter? They matter because black people are children of Adam and Eve just as much as blond and blue-eyed people are. They count because Jesus Christ died for the sins of all who believe and trust in Him. They matter because God is our Creator, and in Him, all human beings are worthy of dignity.

How We Know That Justice is Just

Let's move to the concept of justice. Justice only has meaning because of who God is in and of Himself. No higher authority or standard determines what is just or unjust other than the self-existing Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Without this, human beings have no objective standard to determine whether an action is just or unjust. Without God's revelation, Man is the ultimate authority, and the survival of the fittest holds sway. The stronger determines what is just in the same way a lion prevails over the weaker. No one faults an animal feeding upon the more vulnerable. No hungry animal is tried for murder because it is bigger, stronger, or faster than its prey.

Self-Law, God's Law, and the Meaning of Justice

How do we know that justice is good? Good is good because God is good. He defines what is right by His very nature. Anything that does not conform to His heart is evil. Eve's first temptation in the garden was to determine good and evil for herself rather than by who God is and the Law He gave. (Genesis 3) The word "autonomous" literally means self law (auto = self and nomous = law). As soon as human beings become autonomous, that is a law unto themselves, there is no ultimate standard for goodness, justice, or truth.

In short, without Biblical revelation, justice has no meaning. It has no ultimate standard when individuals, organizations, and governments reject God and His Law. Murder is wrong because it goes against God's revealed Law. On this basis alone, those who do wrong should be punished, and it is by this standard alone lawbreakers are found guilty. 

The Bible reveals that injustice, racism, and murder is wrong. (injustice - Proverbs 17:15, racism - Romans 10:12, murder - Exodus 20:13) Each is wrong because they go against the character of God. 

Outrage Against Injustice Testifies to Biblical Truth

If people don't know the Bible or if they reject the special revelation given in Scripture, their outrage towards injustice testifies that the Law of God is written in the very fabric of creation:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:19-21

The fact that people who are not believers are outraged at injustice is proof that Christianity is true. The most evident proof that injustice is wrong is given in God's special Biblical revelation. Yet, even without special revelation, human beings have a sense of justice by observing creation and by the testimony of their hearts. 

How We Make Black Lives Matter

How do we make black lives matter? The answer is not through protests, nor by defunding the police. It is not by replacing one humanistic law with another man-based law. Racism will not change because the majority posts signs in their front lawn. Nor will it come through education or revolution. All these things may help, but they do not solve the root of the problem.

The problem is in the fallen human heart. It doesn't mean we shouldn't protest or work toward reforming the police or try to influence legislation or let people know where we stand or try to educate or even revolt against an unjust and corrupt government. 

They do not go far enough. It is like putting a bandaid on a festering wound. None deal with the root of the problem. God shows us the hard truth concerning humanity and the human heart:

As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together, they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

Or 

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

What is the answer? Again, the Bible reveals the solution. God calls for each individual to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. The human heart is changed as it is "crucified with Christ." (Galatians 2:20) Romans 6 tells us that when we are in Christ, we cannot continue to live in sin. When we are in Christ, we have the power to walk in the newness of life. The Bible promises that we will be filled with the Holy Spirit and have the ability to not only live according to God's standards of holiness, but change society to be empowered to live according to God's Law. (2 Corinthians 5)

The Role of the Government in Making Black Lives Matter

The government's primary job is to enforce God's Law by punishing evildoers and commending those who do right. (Romans 13:1-5) As we submit to Christ, we have the objective standard by which our government can enact and enforce Law. This Law is not based upon human opinion, majority rule, the survival of the fittest, or any other social standard. The Law is based upon the revealed character of God both in Biblical revelation and general revelation. When this happens, the government will appropriately punish systemic injustice, prejudice, or racism and pass laws to curb these behaviors. A godly government will justly punish all lawbreakers not submitted to the one and only Living God.

The Steps to Make Black Lives Matter

• First, the leadership of Black Matter needs to submit to the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:10-11)

• Second, the leadership needs to renounce any associations with the godless philosophies of Evolution, Marxism, and Atheism. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)

• Third, BLM needs to focus on the conversion of individuals and nations to Jesus Christ (Romans 10:14-17) 

• Fourth, BLM needs to root concepts of injustice, racism, and truth in the character of God as revealed in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

• Fifth, BLM needs to work to establish God's Law as the foundation of our legal system (Romans 3:31)

Who Am I To Speak

Some may criticize me for speaking about Black Lives Matter as a white man. What right do I have to say anything? I think the answer to this lies in that most of the BLM signs are posted on the lawns middle-class white people in suburban America. While my take is different from most white Americans, I believe that if those in the BLM movement welcome their forms of expression, I too have the same right.

I believe I have a duty to speak, considering the racist education I received in my public school "education." I have written elsewhere that the Evolutionary indoctrination that is perpetrated in public schools is inherently racist. It is time for Christians, and all seeking justice for that matter, to speak out against racism as it is taught in public schools.

Finally, I cannot sit idly by as false solutions are given to a severe problem. The teachings of Evolutionary Marxism begets revolution. I believe our country is in the midst of the most significant cultural revolution in our nation's history. This revolution's unifying factor is the rejection of Biblical Christianity and the foundation of God's Law in our justice system. Humanistic law prevails, and as such, we are caught in the Evolutionary trap that change can and will come only through revolution. Here we are back to the survival of the fittest. It is a false answer that will result in a bloody end. 

The answer to all humanity's problems is found in the simple phrase in the Lord's prayer,

"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

It is only in Christ that Black Lives Matter. The sooner we learn this, the sooner justice will come!

Even so, Come Lord Jesus!

Time for a Real Change

“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. Galatians 6:7”

You may not like this verse. You may not believe it. You may ignore it. Truth is truth and doesn't change just because the majority of people think it is not so. 

I have seen the truth of this verse in my life. I thought I could do sinful things and that I was "covered" from the consequences because I would confess my sin and because I was already saved.

But God has built His character into the universe, especially in the realm of humanity.

We were created by God, as was all of creation. Because we were created by God, His Law permeates all of creation. 

The Bible is not talking about "god" in some generic way. When the Bible speaks about God, it is testifying to the One God who exists in three Persons; Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come. Revelation 4:8”

And He is Holy. Not only is He holy, but He is also praised as being holy three times, which means He is the Ultimate Holy One.

And as the Holy One, He stands forever against sin.

Are you mocking God by living or doing things that He says are wrong? To do so is to make fun of God. It says that you know better than He does. You can think that all you want, but that won't change who God is and what He requires us.

The Bible defines sin as "the transgression of God's Law." ( 1 John 3:4). Whether you want to talk about the summary of the Law as loving God or loving your neighbor or you want to talk about the revelation of His Law in the 10 Commandments or if you wish to speak about the application of that Law all throughout the Scriptures, the Law is the Law from the beginning to the end and all the ways it is expressed in the Bible.

The truth is we all have broken God's Law, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) 

And God says, "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) Death in this context means separation from God. The ultimate death, we are told, is eternal separation from God. 

As it says in Isaiah 59:2, "your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God."

What's to be done? The good news of the Bible is that God has made a Way for sinners to be made right with Him. This Way is Jesus Christ. God the Father gave Jesus His Son to die in your place as a substitute. The wages of sin are indeed, death. The question is, who will die this death?

Jesus Christ has already died as God's substitutionary sacrifice. In whose place did He die? He died for all who trust in Him for salvation. Is that you? That is up to you. You have the responsibility to turn from your sin and trust in Jesus. 

What does that mean? It means to stop living in denial about the seriousness of your sin. Don't let others tell you that your sin is not sin. Don't let society deceive you into believing that you are a "good person." Don't let the media lull you into complacency. Don't let your lifestyle's comfort and convenience stop you from running from your sin into the arms of Jesus Christ. 

Leaving your sin can and will be difficult. But what does that matter when you are given the promise of eternal life in Christ?

To come to Christ means to leave your sin. It means to put your sinful heart into His hands and to leave your sinful life. It means to trust that His substitutionary sacrifice is all that you need to have your sins forgiven.

And when you have faith in Christ, God promises that He will forgive you, not only of your sinful heart, but all sin that you have committed in thought, word, and deed.

God also promises that He will fill you with the Holy Spirit. This means that God will empower your heart, soul, mind, and body. He will dwell in and through you to help you do the things He requires of you. The Spirit of God will continue to cleanse you from all sin on a daily bases. In Jesus Christ, you are made right with God, and through the Spirit of Christ, you are made holy in God's eyes.

Will it be difficult to stop living the sinful lifestyle you are living now? Of course, it will be. But God promises blessing on all who walk in His ways. (Psalm 1) This does not mean that God will make you wealthy or famous or prosper you according to the world's standard. It does mean that He will give you a new heart, a new outlook on life, a new purpose, and a new mission. 

If you don't turn away from your sin, the original verse I started with will hold true, "God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap." It may not happen today. It may not happen next week or next year. In fact, you may think you are living your best life, but someday it will all come crashing down. And when it does, I hope my words will come to your mind. I pray you will see the destruction of your life, peace, comfort, and blessing of God.

It will be a blessing because God loves you so much that He would strip you naked in this life to clothe you with His best garments for all of eternity. 

Why wait for everything to come crashing down? Leave your sin and turn to Christ today. You know what is in your life that He is not pleased with. He is pressing you at this moment on that very thing. Shut out every other voice but God's voice and listen, and after listening, do what He says. 

First, acknowledge your sinfulness. Next, trust in Jesus Christ. By faith, hold on to the truth that God, in Christ, completely forgives you. Last, be filled with the Holy Spirit and make whatever changes you need to make in your life to get right with Him.

I am here if you want or need someone to help you walk through this process. Otherwise, heed these words. However you respond, it will make all the difference in your life.

Amen

Yet Another Plea for the Bride of Christ to Divorce the State

If you are a member of a church here in the United States of America, your church is most likely not the Body (Corpus) of Christ, but a Corporation of the State. I would say that over 98% of churches in America are State Corporations. The remaining 2% are either house churches or churches that understood the apostasy of incorporation.

I planted a church and pastored that church for over 12 years that never stopped being part of the Body of Christ because it was not incorporated. It is possible to maintain the separation of Church and State, but it isn't easy.

The First Amendment clearly states: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

What is incorporation?

It is the voluntary petition to create a fictitious legal entity that can act like a person (a body, which is the root of inCORPoration). This fictitious entity can buy, sell, trade, and act like a person. If sued, the corporation is responsible, not any individuals. Your incorporated church is just like MacDonalds, Burger King, Pepsi, Bank of America, and so forth.

There are many reasons why churches seek to incorporate, but outlining these reasons is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article is to confront incorporated churches with the truth that they have voluntarily "wed" the Bride of Church's expression in their midst with the State. 

When a church incorporates, there is no longer a separation of Church and State.

The reason is the Church voluntarily petitioned the State to become part of the State. The Church becomes part of the State because, as stated above, the State plays God by creating a fictitious legal entity. Part of this pact is the agreement that once "created" or incorporated, the State has authority and jurisdiction over what it created. There are benefits to incorporating, but the benefits do not justify the compromise these churches commit by bringing their local church under the jurisdiction and control of the State. The State takes care of its own, at least for a time.

Many pastors will shrug articles like this off with hardly a thought. But I have a question for you and for these pastors. What does Jesus Christ think about His Bride being "created" by, joined with, and presided over by the State? 

The Bible says the head of the Church is Christ (Ephesians 5:23). It means that no one can serve two masters. (Matthew 6:24). God says to have no other gods before Him. (Exodus 20:3) 

While the State has a Biblical role in punishing evildoers, evil being defined as the violation of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), the State does not have authority or jurisdiction over the Church of Jesus Christ. In other words, the State does not have Biblical authority to dictate what the Church does or doesn't do or say. The First Amendment recognizes this Biblical principle.

It is sad how the Church in America has compromised the Body of Christ's status and wed the Bride to the State through incorporation. It is more than sorry. It is, in my opinion, the foundational sin in America today. The Church cannot and will not have any voice to fight the spirit of this age as She fornicates with the State through incorporation. 

It is sad also to see how pastors appear to be so brave standing up against the State during COVID-19 by continuing to meet, sing, pray, worship God and do what the Bride of Christ is supposed to be doing during such a confusing and deceptive time as this. 

Pastors, if you want to do the right thing, don't just defy the State by doing what the Church is called to do anyway.

Get on your knees and repent of the unholy and ungodly wedding between your church and the State through incorporation. Stop being a business man or woman and start acting like the pastors of old who protected and defended the Bride, even if it costs you your life.

Until then, stop disobeying your sovereign head, the State, and do what your Husband tells you to do!

Patterson’s 10 Rules of Biblical Interpretation or Why You are Having Trouble Understanding the Bible

Rule #1: You don’t interpret the Bible, the Bible interprets you.

Rule #2: If there is something you read in the Bible that you don’t agree with, you must change, not the Bible.

Rule #3: There is only one meaning to Scripture that matters and that is God’s intended meaning. Our job is to find out what He meant to communicate. Anything else is superfluous and a waste of time.

Rule #4: You cannot truly understand the Bible apart from the Holy Spirit, yet anyone can understand what the Bible says.

Rule #5: While there is only one meaning to Scripture, there are as many applications as there are people.

Rule #6: First obey what you read in Scripture, then you will understand. Obeying the clear parts of Scripture prepares you to understand the difficult passages.

Rule #7: The Bible is the only self-attesting Book that is the self-revelation of the self-existing triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man and many Scriptures speak of Him. Yet, the Bible also reveals the Unity of God, the Fatherhood of God, and that God is the Holy Spirit. It is a mistake to interpret the Bible as only revealing or speaking about the Second Person of the Trinity.

Rule #8: God uses different literary devices and genres. If you don’t understand this, you will remain confused as to what the meaning is.

Rule #9: There is always a structure in writing. Try to understand the skeleton of how a passage is put together and you then will grasp the whole.

Rule #10: The Bible is not made up of two Books, one old and one new, nor is it 66 Books. It is One Book that reveals all that we need for faith and practice. If you read it as two Books or 66 Books, you will not understand it. And just as you can’t understand a book by reading one sentence or one chapter, so you will not understand the Scriptures as you should unless and until you read it in its entirety.

Welcome to The New Church of the USSA

(All the items listed below are a combination of mandates that are listed on different church websites in Connecticut and throughout the United States of America or are legal truths of incorporated churches)

In the New Church: 

• Since we are an incorporated “church” we must comply with the Secretary of State who is our sovereign head.

• You must obey your governmental leaders.

• You must obey your church leaders who obey your governmental leaders

• You have to register online before you attend.

• You have to receive confirmation before you show up.

• If too many are registered, you will be put on a waiting list.

• We practice contact tracing on behalf of the State so please inform us if you are sick or have tested positive for COVID-19.

• If you receive confirmation to attend, you must wear a mask.

• Wear gloves if you have to touch anything or anybody.

• Hand sanitizer is distributed all throughout the sanctuary.

• You have to maintain at least 6 feet social distancing.

• To not touch anyone!

• Do not hug!

• To not greet anyone with a” holy kiss”!

• To not extend the “right hand of fellowship”!

• No praising God through the singing of hymns, songs, or songs of the Spirit.

• Offering will no longer be part of the service. Buckets are placed at the entrance for your safety.

• Do not come to the altar for prayer!

• If you are sick, stay home! We will not pray for you in person. There will be no laying on of hands.

• There will be no communion.

• There will be no baptisms.

Failure to comply with any or all of the listed mandates can and will result in excommunication and/or expulsion from our church.

And don’t forget to enjoy the liberty to worship we enjoy here in the United States of America.

Final note:

God has not called me to lead a church at this time, but if there are Christians who want to gather as a non-incorporated, non-statist, non-comforming church, please let me know. I would lead such a church as this. Or if there is such a church meeting here in Connecticut, please let me know. It would be refreshing to worship with dangerous Christians.

God have mercy on us!

Are You a Dangerous Christian, or are You Just "Nice"?

Modern Christianity has produced a new phenomenon: the nice Christian. A nice Christian bears little resemblance to the dangerous Christians we read about in the Bible and throughout history. The nice Christian is just that; nice.

John Wesley told Christians not to be "nice." Why did he say this? The Latin roots of the word "nice" mean "ignorant" or "silly." Modern Christianity has become nice in the truest sense of the word. I'll spare you my rant on all the ways. Instead, I will write about the dangerous Christian.

The world, the government, and the minions of Satan hate dangerous Christians. These are believers who fear nothing but God. Jesus tells dangerous Christians that the world will hate them because they hated Him first. (John 15:18-27). Dangerous Christians are told to "love not the world." (1 John 2:15-17). Why would they, they are not citizens of this world. (Philippians 3:20)

This is why governments all throughout history hate these Christians. Nice Christians line up to show just how obedient and subservient they are. They salute the flag, send their children to public schools to pledge allegiance to the state, and stand whenever the National Anthem is played. Dangerous Christians dare to remove the American flag from their sanctuaries and do not sing patriotic songs, refusing to acknowledge that Caesar has any place in God's worship. They refuse to incorporate their church and become a state 501(c)3 state corporation.

Dangerous Christians are the bane of ungodly governments. They refuse to pay homage to the gods of the state. (Exodus 20:5) They would rather face perishing by fire (Daniel 3) than bow down. The Caesars hated these Christians as did tyrants all throughout history. They hate them because this kind of Christianity has brought down every major government in the past. When given the choice of obeying God or ungodly government, these Christians always obey God. (Acts 5:29)

The problem with dangerous Christians is they have already died. (Galatians 2:20). They fear no one and nothing, only God. It's difficult to intimidate someone who believes that killing them only ushers them into the presence of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:8) In fact, these Christians believe that dying for Christ increases their reward in the afterlife. (Matthew 5:10) No, they don't get 72 virgins. They receive Jesus Himself! And for them, there is no greater reward.

Compared to the love of dangerous Christians, the love of nice Christians is pathetic. Nice Christians never speak difficult words, don't offend anyone, and do not want to impose their religion on anyone. Not so with dangerous Christians. They speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), follow the lead of their Savior by offending the crowd (John 6:60-62), and continually impose the gospel's message on this lost world. (2 Timothy 4:2)

Dangerous Christians will give you the shirt off their backs if you are in need (1 John 3:17), yet command that food be withheld from a slacker (2 Thessalonians 3:9-11)

Dangerous Christians defend the innocent and vulnerable with fierceness and tenacity that makes nice Christians uncomfortable. (Psalm 82:3) Nowadays, nice Christians wear masks to protect the irresponsible, while saying nothing about the hundreds of ways people jeopardize their health daily, let alone anything about their eternal soul.

Dangerous Christians stand outside of the abortion clinics that, by the way, remained open during the pandemic's height as an "essential service." Instead of chastising others on Facebook for not wearing a mask, they begged and pleaded with mothers to spare their unborn children. They are so dangerous that governments have to pass special laws limiting the protesting of dangerous Christians so women can have guilt-free access to slaughter their baby in their womb.

Dangerous Christians know the corruption of the human heart and so are suspicious of profit-driven media. (1 John 4:1-3) They wage war against lies, arguments, and opinions that are anti-God and anti-Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:1-6) The media and its disciples can't stand the difficult, penetrating, and insistent questions of dangerous Christians.

These Christians love science, but they don't trust the scientist (Jeremiah 17:5), especially when they have motivations to please those who sign their paychecks. There is nothing more annoying than a Christian asking difficult questions of power or profit-driven science.

Dangerous Christians are not perfect. They make mistakes. Many of them are former adulterers, fornicators, haters, blasphemers, thieves, and alcoholics. (1 Corinthians 6:11) There is plenty to criticize in their lives even now, but no one is faster to admit that than these Christians themselves. They know what a miserable lot they are apart from Jesus Christ. Tell them how hypocritical they are, and they will heartily admit it. Though, they dare to say they are saints and believe they are as holy as Jesus Christ Himself. They indeed are an odd bunch.

Who are these dangerous Christians? They are the ones who call the world to repentance, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the orphan, and provide for the widow, all for Christ's sake. They have only one ultimate cause, and that is the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 25:35-40) While they work for social change, they know that the world can not change unless the root cause of sin is rooted out by the power of the Holy Spirit. These Christians are intolerant of all other religions and are zealous for the One True God, who has revealed Himself in Scripture. They are people of one Book, one faith, and One God.

If you don't know any Christian like the dangerous Christian I've described, you are probably friends with a nice Christian or perhaps are a nice Christian yourself. If you'd like to join the motley crew of dangerous Christians, put down your phone and computer right now and ask God to make you one. Call upon the Holy Spirit to transform you into someone the world, the flesh, and the devil would consider a dangerous Christian.

A Pastoral Prayer 7/22/2020

Heavenly Father, I come before You in humble prayer and adoration. To You alone belongs honor and praise and fear and worship.

And yet, I live among people who honor the military over Your holiness, who praise politicians over Jesus Christ, who fear COVID-19 more than You, and who worship the unholy trinity of money, sex, and power over the Holy Trinity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Just as Your judgment has fallen upon all nations of the past who forsook You and Your holy Law, Your divine judgment has fallen upon my country. You have sent the fear of a deadly pestilence. Instead of repenting and crying out to You, we turn to unholy and ungodly leaders to save us. I know this furthers Your anger towards us, and it is well deserved.

We seek cleansing through the washing of hands, the wearing of masks, and by distancing ourselves from our neighbor rather than through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. We trust more in what experts say more than what Your word says. We turn to humanistic solutions rather than to the means of grace You have given us. We seek to force, shame, and manipulation to control others rather than practice self-governance.

Even those who are called by Your name have fallen prey to fear. Your holy Bride has prostituted herself to the state by becoming a corporation rather than the Body of Christ. Even Your shepherds have bent their knee to the god of this world. Your shepherds shut the doors of Your Church without a fight. Now they defy Your standards of worship by demanding people cover their faces in fear, by forbidding them to greet one another with a holy kiss or by extending their right hand of fellowship. Your pastors forbid the signing of psalms, hymns, and songs of the Spirit. We have broken covenant with You by banning baptism. We have withheld bread and wine and fed Your people individually wrapped pellets and watered down grape juice. Our sermons comfort and coddle rather than call Your people to repentance for wrapping ourselves in our flags rather than Christ's righteousness.

Forgive us for our hypocrisy of trying to protect those who might get sick while turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the silent screams of millions of innocent babies who have been sacrificed on the altar of ease and convenience.

Forgive us for our militaristic society that honors soldiers over missionaries that weeps at the national anthem over Amazing Grace, that evangelizes our youth to thinking that dying for their country is the same as dying for the sake of the gospel, that love is ministered through might rather than the preaching of the gospel and feeding the hungry.

LORD, pour out Your Spirit upon our broken, sinful, and rebellious world. Pour out the Spirit of repentance first upon Your Church. Pour out the Spirit of Truth and write Your Law upon our hearts so that Your justice will prevail rather than the arbitrary and anemic humanistic justice of disobedient rebels who fear no one, including You.

My country is burning out.

I pray You would wake up the remnant from their sleep and from their sin. I pray for a mighty move of Your Spirit.

And finally, I pray for the wisdom of how I can preach and proclaim Your message in love.

I confess I often react out of my flesh and pride more than out of love. But You know my heart and my passion for truth. I pray for more brothers and sisters to come alongside me, who will pray and proclaim Your message.

In the Holy Name of Jesus I pray,

Amen

Three Words I Hate to Hear Most

The three words I hate to hear most are, "You were right!" It means that at some time in the past I said something at that time that nobody believed and ridiculed me for saying. I pray to God my most ardent critics are right and can laugh in my face and tell me just how wrong I was. Those moments bring me more joy than I can express.

Of Mask, Beekeeping, And Bad Arguments

This is another example of the dumbass, distorted, and deceptive propaganda circulating about masks. I've been in beehives without a veil countless times in my life. The one who gets stung up without one is the person who goes in a beehive without a veil and who lets fear take over. I swear, bees can smell your fear.

If we want to be accurate, let's picture some damn fool wearing full bee protection wherever he goes; the store, a restaurant, to church, driving his car, walking out in nature, all because he is terrified that there might be a bee out there somewhere. And he requires everyone else around him to wear a full bee suit because they might have one around them too.

The best thing for those afraid of bees is to stay out of beehives. In other words, if you are so afraid, stay home!

So much for their so-called "experts".

Of Superstition, Magical Masks, and Someone to Blame

There's a letter circulating social media (see below) addressed simply to "Dear restaurant goer." An unidentified restaurant owner wrote it. I do not know if the owner is a man, but for the sake of convenience, I will be referring to the owner as "he." Besides, it has the tone more of a man than a woman, but I could be wrong.

In this letter, the owner states that he requires patrons to wear a mask for a mere 5 seconds as you go to your table or the bathroom. He believes these 5 seconds protect the livelihood of his business, prevent governmental goons from shutting him down if a case of COVID-19 is "traced" to his restaurant, and prevent the death of his employees and his family. You jeopardize and disrespect him if you don't wear your mask for 5 seconds.

Think about how absurd this is. According to a Cornell University study, the average diner takes 81.6 minutes to eat in a restaurant. That adds up to 1 hour and 21 minutes. That is a total of 4,860 seconds a person remains unmasked in his restaurant. For this owner, 5 seconds symbolize respect, protection, security, and safety.

Let's look at the math. This owner requires people to wear a mask .1% of the time while being okay with them being unmasked for 99.99%. And what are people doing during this 99.99% of the time? They are breathing, chewing, laughing, sneezing, coughing, and talking, perhaps with their mouth full, which people tend to do. Who knows how much particulate is expelled into the atmosphere during these 4,860 seconds.

This must be disturbing for hypochondriacs, but being a human being is a messy business. No matter how much you try, you and your fellow human beings are contaminating the environment with their germs, bacteria, sicknesses, and perhaps even their deadly viruses. They certainly are doing a lot more damage in 4,860 seconds than what a person could do in 5. But this owner needs someone to blame, so let's go with the disrespectful sign-ignoring unmasked jerk.

Talk about putting someone at risk. This owner requires his restaurant employees to "pick up your dishes. Your glassware. Your napkins." He makes the "clean that bathrooms after you use them." But everyone is safe because he requires a person to wear a mask for 5 seconds while at the same time allowing people to remain unmasked for 99.99% of the time doing an activity that causes far more damage than a 5-second walk.

Put on your magical mask for 5 seconds, and all will be well. If that's not superstition, I don't know what is. But at least we have someone to blame.

May I talk about these magical masks for a moment? The owner wrote, "A mask increases that safety. It doesn't guarantee it, but it makes your visit more safe for us" How much protection is being provided by masks that are worn for only .1% of the time? Most people are not wearing masks properly anyway, are they? Most people are wearing the same disgusting mask over and over again. Some wear them only over their mouth and not their nose, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Furthermore, the masks that most people wear allow droplets out the side or are cheap masks that do little to no good. Add to that; the people are now wearing bandanas or some sort of ineffective cloth covering. He is right in your belief that wearing a mask is not a "guarantee."

Magical masks indeed!

He is careful not to blame the real bullies in this equation. He fears COVID-19 will be "traced" back to his restaurant. Who's doing contact tracing? How can you possibly prove the virus originated at your restaurant all because a person failed to wear a mask for 5 seconds? He is scared, but he's fear is misplaced. The real bullies are the power-hungry political fear-mongers who have the power to destroy this man's business, not the unmasked patron.

Not only has the government struck fear into this man's heart, but it has also taken away many people's incentive to return to work. The owner almost gets it when he refers to the "sky-high unemployment benefits" with which he competes. Good old socialism, that age-old destroyer of incentive to work. But we mustn't blame socialism. We must condemn the disrespectful unmasked villain.

I honestly feel sorry for this restaurant owner. I do not doubt that he is telling the truth about how difficult it is to maneuver meeting the almost impossible requirements of an incompetent and oppressive governmental system. I believe him when he says that he puts his "entire being" into this restaurant. I understand that he is doing the best he can in a challenging situation.

Sadly it's worse than he knows. He doesn't seem to be aware that the Executive Order he is so desperately trying to obey contains a caveat that could get him into a lot of trouble. Our esteemed Governor placed within his Executive Order No. 7BB a lovely caveat that states:

"Nothing in this order shall require the use of a mask or cloth face covering by anyone for whom doing so would be contrary to his or her health or safety because of a medical condition, a child in a child care setting, anyone under the age of 2 years, or an older child if the parent, guardian or person responsible for the child is unable to place the mask safely on the child's face. If a person declines to wear a mask or face covering because of a medical condition as described above, such person shall not be required to produce medical documentation verifying the stated condition. This order shall supersede and preempt any current or future municipal order."

In other words, all a person has to do is calmly inform the host that they are declining to wear a mask because of a medical condition. Furthermore, they do not have to prove it. He just has to take their word for it. If this poor restaurant owner denies access, he will violate the Governor's Executive Order. Not only that, if he denies access, he may also be violating the Americans with Disability Act, which could open him to litigation. It'd be difficult to win, especially when "such person shall not be required to produce medical documentation verifying the stated condition."

Our society is scared, and perhaps angry, about all that is happening because of COVID-19. Dysfunctional societies need a scapegoat, be it white men, Jews, blacks, the police, democrats, FOX news, those who don't wear masks, Donald Trump, you name it. I blame power-hungry corrupt government officials who are in bed with crony capitalist corporations. They scare me more than anyone else because only they have the legal right to use political power against those who have done no harm. I also blame people who won't use logic, reason, or science. Oh, that people would genuinely use real science and not the politicized form we hear machine-gunned from the media day and night.

I believe we are at a crossroads in the United States. What will tip the scale, in my opinion, is where the mob goes. If they go on the side of blaming those who do not conform to the official narrative, we are doomed. If people such as this restaurant owner wake up, start using real science, and start standing up to the real bullies, there is hope. In the meantime, I implore you to carefully examine what people are saying and believing and try to use logic, reason, and sound science to open their eyes.

***
Dear restaurant goer:

You don’t want to wear a mask. Ok. I don’t blame you. I don’t either. That’s why we set it up so you only have to wear it for the five seconds between the host stand and your table, and during your trip(s) to the bathroom. Still have a problem?

Consider this.

It was indescribably difficult for our restaurant to survive the shutdown. It devastated our savings and permanently eroded consumer confidence in dining out. Now we finally have a chance to open, and all the relevant governing bodies instruct us to require a mask for admittance.

Still have a problem?

Please also be aware that it’s also our staff preference.

Why?

First, if there is a case of COVID traced back to our restaurant, we have to test all staff and close (again) for an indeterminate amount of days. This puts an at-risk operation at even graver risk. Every day and every dollar counts more than I can describe.

Second, the employees you see in the restaurant right now opted to come back of their own volition. With sky high unemployment benefits to compete with, we have worked hard to build a workplace they want to come back to—one that offers fair compensation, above-average safety protocols and most of all, management and ownership that has their best interest in mind.

When you see a restaurant employee at work, it is usually because of some degree of loyalty or respect for the ownership, as well as faith in the safety measures they have put in place. These things took a great deal of time, effort and personal care to build. I now know that demonstrating love for my team is the most important part of my job. More than ever, I recognize how hard I have to fight for them.

If you are infected (either symptomatically or asymptomatically), you put THEM at risk, first and foremost. After all, they’re the ones that pick up your dishes. Your glassware. Your napkins. They're the ones that clean the bathrooms after you use them. DO NOT disrespect them.

On top of the terrifying work environment they have returned to, the new challenge of arguing with guests about masks is hurtful and unnecessarily punitive. Walking past a half dozen signs saying masks are required and then acting surprised about it—even when we offer to give you one at our cost—is inexcusable. And berating a host does not make you a patriot or a constitutional scholar. It makes you a bully, and it affirms the growing realization that the customer isn’t always right.

You may question the lawfulness of Executive Orders. It’s your prerogative. But one thing you can’t question is that as a guest, our safety is in your hands. A mask increases that safety. It doesn’t guarantee it, but it makes your visit more safe for us. It’s that simple.

I have put my entire being into my restaurants. It is my life’s work. Do not—DO NOT—DARE to put it and our loyal team members at risk unnecessarily. When you do so, you disrespect my wife, my daughter and son, and the life we’ve built. Not to mention the livelihood (and possibly lives) of the nearly 15 people we employ.

Bottom line: we’re trying to survive. Your concern about wearing a mask for mere seconds pales in comparison to what's at stake.

A Prophetic Nightmare?

I'm having a recurring nightmare where everyone takes off their masks and their mouths are gone.

COVID-19 AND PRIVILEGE

I translated this commentary I found on the Facebook feed of a friend of mine in Mexico. It really hit me as I read it and saw the picture of the poor Mexican family crammed in a shack. As I traveled throughout Mexico, I saw countless shabby shanties in the country and neighborhoods filled with cinderblock "houses" strewn around the cities. More than you can imagine.

One thought that harasses me as contemplate this article is how racist the virus is, perhaps how racist we all are. I stay at home with my wife in a beautiful apartment in West Hartford, Connecticut debating with others on our computers while millions, perhaps billions of poor people crowd in tiny rooms, many in sweltering climates south of the border, living in fear of the virus, of hunger, of the marauding military, bullying people to stay home.

I honestly don't know what to think as I, and most of my friends, read this in the comfort of our quarantine.

I don’t have the link. If anyone has it, please let me know so I can point to it. Here's the article.

****

Stay at Home

That’s the premise, the slogan.

Stay at home, says the sports star hugging his wife while his children run around the 1200 square foot home. Stay at home, says the politician, while he chooses which of his properties he will spend the quarantine on.

People don't understand how serious the virus is, says someone else, as they unload the crate of fruit and vegetables he bought online and paid for with his card at his door. And what about those who stocked their groceries in the big stores to get through the quarantine.

But on the fringes are the invisible neighborhoods, the 12x12 "houses", made of sheet metal and cardboard, where the cold is COLD and the heat unbearable. What about those houses filled with families where what they earned yesterday is today's food, where, if you didn't earn yesterday, there is no food today, where the safety measures are mandated but are impossible to comply? They are afraid of the virus too but don’t have the ability to protect themselves!

They just try to live, to be safe, and survive day by day.

The virus doesn't make us equal. The virus highlights, even more, the intolerance, the apathy with which the privileged sector of this society looks at those who have less.

-Stay at home to take care of us all: those who can’t are accused and questioned.

Outside the virus, inside the hunger on the faces of their children filled with disappointment, uncertainty, hopelessness.

Do we really take care of each other?

And what about the refugees outside countries waiting for asylum?

No, we're not in the same boat. We are in the same sea...
some on a luxury yacht, some in a fancy boat, while others have only life jackets or can only try to swim to survive!

I wonder if, in the end, we will learn anything new and actually do something positive to change what is happening in the world beyond the virus.

Quédate En Casa
Es la premisa, el eslogan.
Quédate en casa, dice el futbolista, abrazado a su esposa mientras sus hijos corren por los 400 metros cuadrados de su hogar.
Quédate en casa, dice el político, mientras elige en cuál de sus propiedades pasará la cuarentena.
La gente no entiende, dice alguien más, mientras descargan en su puerta el cajón de fruta y verdura que compró online y pagó con su tarjeta.
Y qué decir de aquellos que surtieron sus despensas en las grandes tiendas para pasar la cuarentena.
Pero al margen, los barrios invisibles las "casas" 4x4, de chapa y cartón, donde el frío es FRÍO y el calor abraza y marea.
Esas casas llenas de familias, donde lo que ganaste ayer, es la comida de hoy.
Donde, si no ganaste ayer, no hay comida hoy.
Donde se conocen las medidas sanitarias, pero es imposible cumplirlas.
¡Tienen miedo, pero sin medios!
Sólo se intenta vivir, resistir, sobrevivir día a día.

El virus no nos hace iguales.
El virus pone en evidencia, aún más, la intolerancia, la apatía con que el sector privilegiado de esta sociedad mira a los que menos tienen.

-Quédate en tu casa, para cuidarnos entre todos: Se los acusa e interpela.

Afuera el virus, adentro el hambre...las caras de sus hijos, la decepción, la incertidumbre, la desesperanza.

¿Realmente nos cuidamos entre todos?

Y los refugiados fuera de países esperando asilo?

No, no estamos en el mismo barco,
Estamos en el mismo mar...
Unos en yate, otros en lancha, otros en salvavidas y otros nadando con ¡todas sus fuerzas! .

Me pregunto si al final tendremos un aprendizaje y haremos algo positivo para cambiar lo que se está haciendo mal en el mundo.

Driving into a Rainbow

I had an interesting phenomenon happen yesterday afternoon. As I was listening to a debate on YouTube between Dr. Kaiser, Ken Ham, Hugh Ross, and Jason Lisle on Genesis discussing Noah, I drove into a rainbow. I’ve seen many rainbows in my life, but I’ve never had the experience of driving into one. I was able to get a picture of it to remember it by.

Rainbows mean many things to many people. For me, it reminds me of the covenant God made with Noah in Genesis 9:8-17. In this unconditional covenant, God promised He would never again send a worldwide flood to destroy the earth because of sin. When I saw this rainbow, I was reminded of God’s faithfulness and His grace not only to me but to all humanity.

I remembered how this covenant led up to the New Covenant God made with us through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. It reminded me of how the Second Person of the Trinity became a man and died as a substitutionary sacrifice for all who have faith in Jesus. I was reminded of my own sin and how God has forgiven and removed my sin from me and that, in Christ, I am declared holy.

It was a beautiful experience and one for which I am very grateful.

Christians: Where’s Our Passion?

If Bible-believing Christians proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ and advanced the kingdom of God with the same passion, intensity, and determination as BLM and the LGBTQIA+ crowd, I wonder what would happen in our world and in our nation. Perhaps we really don’t believe as deeply in our message as they do in theirs. Just saying.

The Origen of Systemic Racism

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑢𝑒:

𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡, 𝐼 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑃𝑎𝑢𝑙 𝑤𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑠 17:26, "𝐺𝑜𝑑 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ." 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑘 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 "𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑" 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 "ἔθνος" (𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑠). 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑 "𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑖𝑐," 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 "𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑒," "𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒," 𝑜𝑟 "𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛." 𝐼 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠. 𝐼 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑣𝑒. 𝐴𝑠 𝑎 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛, 𝐼 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒. 𝐼 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑤𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑑𝑎𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑛 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑤.

I have been thinking a lot about racism. As a Bible-believing Christian, I have no problem with the toppling of idols and graven images or exposing the racist hypocrisy of many of our ancestors and founding "fathers." The United States was built upon the ungodly domination, subjugation, and extermination of a nation that pre-existed long before my Pilgrim ancestors arrived on the scene, not to mention slavery. And paintings of Jesus? Well, I never liked them, especially white Jesus, that hippy type looking dude with long hair and a beard who looks more like the guy on a Zig Zag blunt wrap package than anyone else.

However, I'm still waiting for modern social iconoclasts to focus on one of the biggest racists idols in history. This guy is responsible for more racist attitudes than anyone else I know. Of course, the man I am referring to is Charles Darwin, you know, that guy who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest"?

I was thoroughly indoctrinated by his racist view in my biology class in high school. I remember looking at the amoeba-to-man illustration in the text, wondering where I, as a white-boy, fit into the scheme of things. I wasn't taught that all human beings, regardless of the color of their skin, were made in the image of God. No, I was taught that human beings of various races are just one step in a long line of evolutionary transition. It wasn't said, but implicitly, my classmates and I were being indoctrinated with the racist belief that white people were further along in the evolutionary process than black and brown-skinned people.

Along with evolution, I was taught the "scientific" principle of the "survival of the fittest." It was more than just the process of natural selection. Natural selection made sense and is a scientific fact. We can observe it and repeat it. What we cannot observe and repeat are the supposed evolutionary leaps that happened over millions of years. It wasn't until I studied logic that I saw the inherent flaw of evolution. We start with a single-cell creature that, through natural selection, end up a human being. Going from simplicity to complexity, using the means of atrophy is absurdity.

I was taught that biologically some entities are further along on the evolutionary process than others and, as such, dominate the lower developed entities because of a superiority of intellect and adaptability. In other words, those who hold power deserve to be on top because of their superior biological evolution. It's all about "survival of the fittest." And if you are superior, you must not only grab the power, you must consciously and intentionally dominate and subjugate anything inferior. If you lose control, it is your own fault. Perhaps you weren't as "fit" as you thought you were. Wealthy white Europeans loved Darwin. He gave them a "scientific" justification for imperialism and Manifest Destiny.

So, I'm waiting for the Darwin god to fall. I'm waiting for those heinous symbols of racism, the Darwin fish with legs, to be ripped off of car bumpers and thrown into the gutter. I'm waiting for those fighting against systemic racism to direct their furor against our governmental socialist indoctrination centers that disseminate this inherent racist propaganda to innocent, vulnerable, and unsuspecting children. And I'm hoping and praying those fighting against racism will submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Law of God and fight for the only way racism, and all sin for that matter, can and will be overthrown. "Even so, come Lord Jesus!"

Sincere Questions of a Mask Skeptic

I have some sincere questions. I don’t think I am the only one with these questions. I am honestly seeking answers. If you cannot answer thoughtfully and respectfully, please move along. Feel free to answer any or all. My intent is not to argue and I promise to consider all thoughtful replies.

The reason you insist on everyone wearing a mask is that wearing a mask keeps us safe from COVID-19. It stops the spread, both of infecting others and being infected. This is the reasoning, is it not?

Doesn’t this mean that those who are wearing a mask are safe from both giving and receiving the virus?

And if you are safe, why are you worried and upset by those who do not wear a mask? Aren’t the mask wearers safe in spite of the unsafe practices of people who do not wear masks?

If you are not safe, in other words, if wearing a mask doesn’t really work, then why do you wear one?

Either it works or it doesn’t, no?

Are the masks people are wearing adequate to prevent the intrusion or expulsion of the virus? What about wearing a bandana or a form of woven cloth? Are most people wearing face protection that is woefully inadequate to both keep out and keep in COVID-19? If these homemade and inadequate masks do not work, why do you feel comfortable with people wearing these inadequate masks? Why don't you insist they put on a "real" mask? Are the masks you are wearing yourself sufficient to protect you and others from the virus? If not, why are you wearing it?

And if we are just dealing with probabilities of preventing the spread of COVID-19, “wearing a mask cuts down the chances of giving or receiving the virus”, then why are you only concerned with deaths caused by COVID-19? If life is so precious to you, why only limit your concern to the virus? Isn’t life filled with risk? This is why, I think, anti-mask wearers feel the pro-mask wearers are inconsistent or selective. Is death by COVID-19 somehow worse than death by an automobile accident, or having another type of flu, or lung cancer from smoking, or heart disease or the multitude of way people die statistically more than by COVID-19? Why be so concerned about stopping the spread of COVID-19 and ignore all the other ways people suffer and die? Why not be equally concerned with other ways people die and do all you can to prevent these deaths with the same passion and ardor?

If practicing social distancing, that is staying at least 6 feet apart, hinders or prevents the giving and receiving of the virus, then why do you insist everyone wears a mask and practice social distance?

If social distancing doesn’t prevent the spread of the virus, then why insist upon it? And if wearing a mask keeps you safe, then why bother practicing and insisting that everyone have a safe social distance?

If wearing a mask keeps the mask wearers safe, aren’t the only people who are at-risk the people who don’t wear a mask? Why can’t the non-mask wearers hijack the mantra of pro-choice advocates and claim, “My body, my choice?”

Do you honestly believe those who do not wear masks are mentally ill, stupid, selfish, or rebellious?

Why aren't basic hygiene practices adequate such as covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze?

Is there really no health risks to wearing a mask for extended periods of time or during strenuous exercise?

I'm notice many people have a mask hanging from their rear view mirror. I assume these are being used over and over again. Isn't it dangerous to continue to use a mask over and over again that has the presence of germs that you have pulled into it or breathe out to it? Don't health professionals change their masks each time they use one? Why are you not more adamant against multiple mask user violations?

I also want to know why people insist masks should be worn outside, in the fresh air and sunshine and open water such as a lake, river, or ocean? Is COVID-19 so powerful that it can live and spread under these conditions?

Why advocate to close down the beaches or insist people wear a mask on a beach?

Why do people wear masks in their car?

Why do people wear masks out on a walk with little to no one around? I see this a lot while driving.

Why do they close parking in places like Elizabeth Park in Hartford and make people park on the street? How does that help stop the spread? People just park on the street and walk into the park. What has that solved?

If you are just going to insult, name-call, be sarcastic, I will delete what you write. I am asking for thoughtful, intelligent, and mature pro-mask people to respond. I think more and more people are asking these types of questions. I know I am.

(A Very) Thin Blue Line

God helps us if the only thing that keeps the USA from sinking into chaos is a Thin Blue Line. I am not taking a crack at the police here. A nation that does not fear God and cannot practice self-governance is as close to collapse as you can get and the police can't stop it. The only thing that holds us from total destruction is the mercy of God. Only the gospel of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit writing His Law upon our hearts will transform this world. The transformation must come from within and that can only come through faith in Christ and establishing the law of liberty (James 2:12).

God’s Law or Humanistic Law: Which Do Prefer?

Current estimates on the number of Federal laws in America range anywhere between 15,000 and 50,000. Nobody knows for sure. It is said the average American breaks the law at least 3 times per day.

God's Law has only 10 Laws that are clear, easily understood, and reasonable.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Honor thy father and thy mother
3. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
5. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet

In fact, Jesus summarized these 10 Laws into Two:

Matthew 22:36-40

𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝐿𝑎𝑤 𝑣𝑠. 𝐻𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐿𝑎𝑤 (𝐿𝑎𝑤𝑠 𝑀𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑈𝑝 𝐵𝑦 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡): 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝐿𝑎𝑤 “𝑇𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐿𝑎𝑤?” 𝐴𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑖𝑚, “𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐿𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑖𝑡: 𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓. 𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐿𝑎𝑤 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑠."

Sadly, the USA is transitioning from the rule of law to Public Policy. As this happens, more and more people will become snitches, tattletales, and general pain the asses as they seek to police others on whatever the current Public Policy happens to be.