The Daily Mail reported Harvard University (whose degree used to mean something) has named a devout atheist to be its new head chaplain (over 40 other chaplains) who wants to be known as a “humanist rabbi.” The over-priced, over-touted, and over-endowed school says, “it’s catering to the 40% of students who are NOT religious or agnostic.” But then, I thought they had done that for 50 years. The newly appointed religious leader said, “We don’t look to a god for answers.” Well, I know that’s been going on for more than 50 years.

Furthermore, Harvard Medical School continued to rewrite their history when they removed portraits of 31 of their past presidents because 30 were white. One of its former presidents has been designated a “racist, homophobic, antisemitic (sic), and xenophobic.” While I hesitate (a little) to defend such a person, it is not scholarly (or honest) to deny history. He did help make Harvard what it is, and all scholars stand on the shoulders of past dead, male, and white intellectuals. Harvard will still accept donations from white, dead (or living) males to fund scholarships to POC whether they qualify as students or not. All Harvard officials who sign on to such reverse racism might deserve a quota-hired surgeon when they need a triple heart by-pass.

The cowardly Harvard officials suggest students should not have to see portraits of a former racist president while they’re “eating Cheerios” in the dining hall. Well, at the cost of $278,000 for four years, students should be eating a more delicious breakfast than Cheerios. How about old-fashioned breakfast from Cracker Barrel or Waffle House, which would include service with a smile.

Harvard officials have not been true to their heritage for decades. Conscientious people are known for their consistency. Not hypocrisy. However, when one remembers the noble history of Harvard and its present place in society, it is evident that Harvard needs to make some significant changes to be consistent, but ones not prompted by political correctness.

If Harvard really wanted to do the principled thing, they would hire a president who willingly accepts the term, Fundamentalist. Or at least Evangelical but not the loosey-goosey kind. They would do that to be true to their heritage and faithful to the many born-again Christians who supported the school for hundreds of years.

The school was taken over by the enemy it was organized to fight against.

Harvard’s history began when the colony established its first college at New Towne (Massachusetts), later renamed Cambridge. Classes started in the summer of 1636 with one professor and nine students in a single frame house and a “college yard.” The present student body consists of over 20,000 students and 360,000 living alumni worldwide.

John Harvard was a Puritan minister who died of tuberculous in 1638 at 31 years of age and left half his estate to the new college. He is known as the “founder” of Harvard but was more of a benefactor since the school was founded two years earlier. There is a statue honoring John at a prominent place in Harvard Yard.

John was a teaching elder at the First Church of Charlestown in the neighborhood of Boston. It is associated with both the United Church of Christ and the Southern Baptist Convention “holding to a conservative view of the Bible and holding to the traditional Reformed view of theology.” Harvard served as an assistant minister at the church until his death.

Therefore, Harvard University owes its existence to a Puritan preacher who believed bizarre things like fornication and adultery were sinful and that such sins were punished by execution (carried out three times.) And no one ever waved the LGBTQ flag at Harvard Yard.

John’s statue should depict him hanging his head in shame at Harvard’s theological and moral bankruptcy.

Henry Dunster was president in 1640 at age 28 and served until 1654. He should get credit for the success of the college since he found Harvard desolate of students, devoid of buildings, and definitely needing income. He left it a blossoming institution with several buildings and a promising future.

Dunster’s forced resignation caused significant controversy because he was a famous Puritan, but by 1653, he became convinced infant baptism was unscriptural—bad news for a Puritan. He refused to have his baby son sprinkled since he now believed “only penitent believers confessing their sins” qualified as baptismal candidates. He even “intervened publicly at the baptism of [a] local infant,” causing a major stir in New England.

The baptism doctrine pretty much made Dunster a Baptist except in church government. More bad news in Puritan New England. He made it worse by asserting all gospel worship is based on Scripture “but paedobaptism (infant baptism) hath none.”

Moreover, Dunster believed in the separation of church and state while the Puritans’ Congregational Church controlled everything, even voting.

Dunster’s cause was clear, and he was forced to leave his home in Cambridge. The Puritan Court ousted Dunster from his home even though he had contributed a hundred acres of land to the college on which he had built the president’s home with his own hands. With winter approaching, he received an order to vacate the home even though his family was ill.

If present Harvard officials were compassionate and principled, they would really do the right thing by replacing the current Jewish president with a strong, male Baptist! I can provide a long list of qualified candidates with Ph.D., Th.D., Ed.D., or D.Min. degrees.

I might even consider the Presidential position under the following conditions: All unbelieving professors must resign immediately; all non-Baptists will be “let go” at the end of the school year; all tenure will be disavowed at the end of this school year; all immoral relationships will be confessed and forsaken; every employee will be expected to read the Bible through each year; Smoking, swearing, and swilling any alcoholic beverage will be cause for dismissal of any student or employee; I will have full authority to make any changes in employees, policies, curriculum, etc. Lastly, I will run the school from Georgia since there is no way I will leave the serenity of the south for the nightmare of Boston.

Note to the Harvard Trustees: I will consider the position. No promises.

One of the early presidents of Harvard was Increase Mather, who graduated from Harvard at age 17, sailed to Dublin for his Master’s Degree at Trinity College, and back to Boston to become pastor of North Church in 1661. The following year, he married his stepsister Maria Cotton. He became president of Harvard in 1685 and resigned in 1701, mainly because of political matters—not because he married his stepsister. While serving as Harvard’s president, Increase Mather used an enslaved man given to him by his son Cotton Mather “to run errands” for the college.

Cotton Mather supported the new college headed by his father and taught that Blacks were “the miserable children of Adam and Noah,” ordained to slavery as punishment.

So, Harvard has slavery in its history, not just racism.

Harvard University’s departure from the faith and its charter is what has happened in every other educational institution in the world. If John Harvard knew what his namesake was doing, he would be appalled at the apostasy.

Harvard (founded by Bible-believing Christians!) is one of the nation’s most prestigious and expensive Ivy League schools. It has granted official school recognition to a BDSM sex club— BDSM means “bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism”! That fits with Harvard’s “incest-fest” party, which a major hall hosts each winter. Proving that a former Fundamentalist institution can be very broadminded, a workshop delved into the ins and outs of anal sex, with a presenter denouncing the “stupidity of abstinence” and the joys of “putting things in your butt,” according to a College Fix reporter who attended the event.

Former president of Harvard John Leverett (died 1724) complained about vile student activities in his day. In his diary, Leverett confesses that the faculty “struggled mightily to control unsavory student behavior such as swearing, ‘riotous Actions,’ and card-playing—to which student diaries add attending horse races and pirate hangings in Boston.”

Obviously, Harvard has drifted far, far from its Puritan roots. It seems anything is permissible, even acceptable at Harvard, no matter how contrary to Scripture. One of their professors, Steven Pinker, pontificated, “The Bible is a manual for rape, genocide, and the destruction of families…. Religion has given us stonings, witch burnings, crusades, inquisitions…and mothers who drown their children in the river.” So, the first college in America now has professors who refuse and reject and ridicule the Bible.

What would John Harvard be thinking?

Harvard’s mission statement at its beginning was, “Everyone shall consider as the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life. John 17:3.” Remember that this statement was told to early Americans who were asked to give of their meager income to finance the new college. They gave but never expected the school to apostatize to become one of the most anti-Christian schools in America. Americans are still giving to Harvard until it has the largest trust fund in the world—over 39 billion dollars. Make a note that it is billion, not million.

With the preceding in mind and Harvard officials draping or removing portraits of former presidents who were racists, some other changes are required in the name of consistency. First, they must remove the statue of John Harvard. After all, he taught that a wife was to obey her husband, believed all sexual activities outside marriage were wrong and taught that homosexuality was an unspeakable sin.

Several Harvard professors were angry that school officials responded to the major college cheating scandal by looking into professors’ private emails. The professors declared that is worse than selling an acceptance letter to wealthy families. But those professors didn’t seem concerned about sex week, anti-capitalism, pro socialism, anti-Semitism, and a general departure from the Bible, their heritage, and common sense.

If students today should not have to eat their Cheerios looking at the portrait of a racist, then students should not have to walk by the statue of John Harvard, who held to the biblical teaching about marriage, sex, and perversion. Nor should they have to face the name, painting, or facts about a Bible-spouting Baptist who embarrassed every Puritan in the colony for rejecting infant baptism. That goes for Mather, who owned a slave while on campus. Call everyone together to scour the campus and every building to remove any reference to Mather because of his reluctance to denounce the Salem Witch Hunt. He must go.

Being run by wimps without character (including the board of trustees responsible for all the incompetent professors and vacuous curriculum), Harvard will not make any changes that the school’s founders and supporters would have thought wise.

The present conditions at Harvard reflect America’s deviancy, degradation, and decline.

I weep with John.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

No doubt President Trump has associated himself with disreputable people, been divorced twice and sexually involved with various women. Furthermore, he has made revolting remarks often about disgusting people. Moreover, he is often rude, crude, and lewd, but being castigated by low-life Al Sharpton is outrageous, almost funny.

When one knows some of the highlights, or the lowlights, of Al’s life and listens to him for a few minutes, it is obvious that for him to call Trump ignorant is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath.

The Reverend Sharpton is a high priced but lowdown clown who doesn’t seem to know that the foul breath of prejudice is deadly to the soul.

Sharpton’s first marriage was to Marsha Tinsley that lasted about a year. His second marriage was in 1980 to backup singer, Kathy Jordan, whom he met while on a James Brown tour in 1971. They separated in 2004. He has been seen at high profile events with Aisha McShaw, 20 years younger who without any hesitation has claimed to the media that she is Sharpton’s “girlfriend.”

Just Richest, an entertainment publication, declared, “This in itself would not be an issue, as the reverend is at liberty to date owing to his over a decade separation from his wife. But the issue rises from the fact that he is still legally bound to his former wife as their separation is yet to be legalized into a formal divorce.”

Al’s divorce seems to be in question since Heightline reported, “The preacher and his wife got amicably divorced in 2004. It is common knowledge that while still married to Kathy, the Social/political activist had a girlfriend in the person of Aisha McShaw.” Well, if true, it is tragic and no true Baptist preacher would try to defend such sleaze.

Al asked, “Don’t I have a right to date when my marriage has been over for a decade?” Yes, he does but not before he is divorced and there are many news accounts reporting that he is not divorced.

Moreover, his girlfriend dresses like a typical Hollywood floozy and has a daughter from a “previous relationship.” Just the observation of one Baptist about another Baptist.

The Reverend Al was a member of the Church of God that ordained him at age 10. Later he became a Baptist; however, he is a preacher who seldom preaches. When he does preach, it is contemptible preaching. His record reveals him to be a hater of Whites, Jews, and Conservatives of any color.

Al and his buddies at Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panther Party held a protest in defense of anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan and his black racist hate group, the Nation of Islam.

When speaking at New Jersey’s Kean College in 1994, Sharpton said: “White folks was (sic) in the cave while we [blacks] was (sic) building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology (sic, astronomy) and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Al neglected to mention that on the black continent of Africa, Blacks were so backward, they had never seen a wheel in the 1800s! Oxford University Professor John Baker, reveals in Race that the wheel was unknown in sub-Saharan Africa even in the mid-1800s. Baker quotes the missionary-explorer David Livingstone’s diaries which tells of thousands of Africans in Linyanti, (now Namibia) to see his “vehicles in motion and thus for the first time to observe the rotation of a wheel.”

Al would have us believe that Blacks developed vast civilizations (even the pyramids) yet less than 200 years ago did not know of the wheel. It seems the wheel was first used in Sumer in present-day Iraq, comprising the southern part of Mesopotamia in about 3500 BC, and spread across Europe, Asia, and North Africa.

The Kean College speech featured Sharpton explaining that America’s founders consisted of “the worst criminals, the rejects they sent from Europe … to the colonies.” “So [if] some cracker,” he continued, “come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was (sic) crooks.”

Real scholarship, huh? Evidently, Al’s forte is not English or history! What was that about “lack of knowledge?”

Al again showed his hatred for America when he said, “While the rest of the country waves the flag of Americana, we understand we are not part of that. We don’t owe America anything—America owes us.”

The Baptist preacher’s statement on perversion clearly puts him in another denomination. He declared, “As a Baptist minister, I don’t have the right to impose my views on anyone else. If committed gay and lesbian couples want to marry, that is their business; none of us should stand in their way.”

As a Baptist minister he has the right and obligation to preach truth. But it seems the reverend might be planning an international office in Sodom.

When David Dinkins (an African American) was mayor of New York City, Sharpton angrily denounced Dinkins (when the black mayor was unsupportive of Sharpton’s activities) in the following terms: “David Dinkins, you wanna be the only nigger on television, only nigger in the newspaper, only nigger that can talk. Don’t cover them, don’t talk to them, ’cause you got the only nigger problem. ‘Cause you know if a black man stood up next to you, they would see you for the whore that you really are.” He also referred to Dinkins as “that nigger whore turning tricks in City Hall.”

Sharpton, like many other Blacks, has no problem using the forbidden word. “There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time.” But, don’t you be so careless.

Sharpton was involved in an incredibly sleazy episode that almost destroyed white, former Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones who was accused by Tawana Brawley in 1987 of raping her. Al jumped to her defense (since she was black) and was another opportunity to “play to the gallery.” Sharpton was found guilty of defamation of the prosecutor by a jury in a New York court. Moreover, Sharpton has refused to accept responsibility and expresses no regret for defaming Mr. Pagones.

With such a deplorable résumé, it is no surprise that he is powerfully ridiculed on the one side and weakly defended on the other side. Liberals cringe during Al’s television show as he stumbles through hollow, hateful, and humiliating diatribe. Thinking people laugh.

A 2013 Zogby Analytics poll found that one quarter of Blacks said that Al Sharpton speaks for them. Radicals like Sharpton have taken “civil” out of civilization and put “cult” into culture. He speaks with forked tongue so it might be wise for Blacks to be more careful whom they have speak for them.

With Al Sharpton’s dismal, disgraceful, and dubious life, he has the gall to criticize Trump for anything. Maybe this an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

But then, that might appear to be racist.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA TODAY for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

It is my desire to dispel the myths, delusions, superstitions, and lies that are circulating about Patrick. Of course, he did not drive the snakes out of Ireland but his preaching of Christ drove out the pagan Druids and removed human sacrifice; also, his assistants in his “monastery” copied and preserved the Bible and standard texts for us to peruse today. All this while the Roman Empire was crumbling and the dark ages were falling upon Europe and the Roman Church gained more and more power and riches.

Patrick was reared in a Christian home and his father was a deacon in an evangelical (or Baptistic) church. Also, his grandfather pastored in these ancient churches of Britain which had never come under the Roman yoke. An historian wrote more than a hundred years ago, “…the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of…his father.” Under that Christian influence, Patrick felt called to go back to Ireland as a missionary to convert those pagan Druids who had enslaved him!

He became one of the most effective missionaries of all time, some think, only second to the Apostle Paul! He refused to take gifts from kings and preached to everyone about the grace of God. Patrick wrote that he “baptized thousands of people,” ordained men to the ministry, counseled and won wealthy women, and sons of kings and trained them for Christian service. He refused to be paid for baptizing people, ordaining preachers, and even paid for the gifts he gave to kings.
He was legally without protection since he refused the patronage of kings and was beaten, robbed, and put in chains. He says that he was also held captive for 60 days but gives no details.

It is only natural that the nascent but growing Roman Church would claim him but it was and is a bogus claim.

One historian wrote, “Rome’s most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she ‘annexed’ the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints.” Well said.

Baptists should appreciate the fact that Catholics pay homage to him, even build churches in his honor; however, it is time to realize that Patrick was only a very simple, even untrained Baptist preacher. He was not interested in power or position or possessions but in preaching the simple Gospel of Christ. From my study of him, he would be embarrassed and chagrined that a day in his honor is often turned into a drunken orgy.

The early non-Catholic Churches were not called “Baptist” but most preached, practiced, and professed what modern Baptists do.

If Patrick had been a Roman Catholic then somewhere there would be support for that, but there is none. Patrick wrote Confession, or Epistle to the Irish and Epistle to Coroticus and in neither did he refer to Rome. The Breastplate, a hymn is also attributed to him. Not one of his early biographers mentions any Roman connection. Moreover, there is no support for the claim that Pope Celistine sent him to the Irish people.

Furthermore, during his life, the Roman Church was only in embryo form. The Bishop of Rome was not considered the authoritarian he became much later. In fact, church authority was split in five directions: the Patriarchs at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria all claimed to have as much authority as the Roman Bishop!

Professor George T. Stokes, a prominent scholar, declared that before the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish Church was independent, autonomous, and “…dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all.”

Neander’s History of the Christian Church says that the facts “prove the origin of the [Irish] church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain… Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confession; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself.”

Odriscol, who, incidentally, was an Irish Catholic, in his work entitled, Views of Ireland, reveals: “The Christian church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and his predecessors, existed for many ages, free and unshackelled. For 700 years this church maintained its independence. It had no connection with England and differed on points of importance with Rome.” That’s from an Irish Catholic!

Another Irish scholar wrote, “…Leo II was bishop of Rome from A.D. 440 to 461 and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there.” So, until after 461, the Roman Church had not tried to make Patrick as one of their major “saints.”

Furthermore, the Venerable Bede (Father of English History) did not refer to Patrick in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. That fact is shattering to Patrick’s Roman connection.

Moreover, there are many other proofs that Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic:
He only baptized born again believers–never infants. He wrote about a convert named Enda who was saved the night after his son Cormac was born. He baptized Enda but not his infant son. And in all his letters and his books, Patrick never mentions baptizing infants. He wrote of “baptized captives,” “baptized handmaidens of Christ,” baptized believers,” and he wrote, “Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men,…” But never infants.

An additional proof of Patrick being a Baptist was he only baptized by immersion. Various church historians record an incident when 12,000 people were converted and baptized. “Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle [Patrick] entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire.”

Thomas Moore, in his history of Ireland says: “The convert saw in the baptismal fount where he was immersed the sacred well at which his fathers worshipped.”
Archbishop Usher admits: “Patrick baptized his converts in Dublin, including Alpine, the king’s son, in a well near Saint Patrick Church, which in after ages became an object of devotion.”

Famous church historian William Cathcart stated, “There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards.” He also wrote, “There are strong reasons for believing Patrick was a Baptist missionary and it is certain that his Baptism was immersion.” No, Patrick was a Baptist preacher, not a Roman Catholic priest.

Some have accused Patrick of not believing in the Trinity, but that is false. He does not deny it in his two books and his hymn, The Breastplate clearly affirms that vital doctrine: Patrick and his followers advanced toward the Irish king dressed in white, carrying crosses and singing the first verse of Patrick’s hymn:
                                     I bind to myself today
                                    The strong power of the invocation of the Trinity;
                                    The faith of the Trinity in unity;
                                    The Creator of the elements.

He is also accused of keeping the Sabbath, that’s no big deal. I think everyone would be in better health if they took a day for total relaxation. I noted that one reference to him keeping the Sabbath mentioned that he rested on the Sabbath but held services on the Lord’s Day. Col 2:16 tells us “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” It is also true that people of Scotland kept the Sabbath so it could be that he decided to not hinder his preaching by attacking lessor matters. Whatever, I think it is no big deal or even a small deal.

Patrick knew nothing of confession or forgiveness by a priest; he forbade worship of images; he never told his converts to pray to Mary or any other “saint”; he never mentions purgatory, holy days, rosary, or last rites. Moreover, Patrick never mentions any pope or cardinal or gives credibility to any creed, catechism, or confessional. Nor to Eucharist, relics, or dogma of the Roman Church.

Patrick was not Irish nor was he a Catholic. He preached, practiced, professed, and promoted Baptist distinctives and to declare otherwise is simply Irish blarney.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Recently the famous Calvary Baptist Church (formally a Southern Baptist Church) in Washington, D.C. shattered the glass ceiling by calling as their pastors, Sally Sarratt and Maria Swearingen to occupy their pulpit! Of course, the search committee made sure that the “couple” was “married.” Horrors, they couldn’t have unmarried lesbians as pastors!

“We look for the best people in the world and that’s who they were,” church spokeswoman Carol Blythe told the Religion News Service. “We’re very excited.” The church was impressed by their “deep faith and commitment to being part of a gospel community.”

I wonder what the “reverends” will do when they preach from the passages in Leviticus and Romans that warn against perversion. Probably they will do what they did with the passage dealing with requirements for pastors.

Heretics and apostates change their theology to justify their wicked lifestyle as did the bisexual Dr. Debra Haffner, ordained minister and ardent abortionist. She teaches that the Bible supports bisexuality “proving” her case with the lives of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi.

EastLake Community Church outside Seattle is quietly coming out as one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to support full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ people. Pastor Ryan Meeks, 36, is on the front wave of a new choice. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Wow, isn’t Ryan a highly principled parson!

Lutheran pastor Dr. Ralph Underwager was asked, “Is choosing pedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?” His answer: “Certainly it is responsible….Pedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God’s will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people….” He went on to add, “Pedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that pedophilia is an acceptable expression of God’s will for love and unity among human beings.”

Someone hand me a barf bag. It is incredible that any Lutheran Church or council would ordain such a shameless, senseless, and sinful person.

Chris Korda (female) started the Church of Euthanasia in Massachusetts and it has only one commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Procreate.” Its most popular slogan is “Save the Planet, Kill Yourself” and other slogans include “Six Billion Humans Can’t Be Wrong,” and “Eat a Queer Fetus for Jesus.” Its four main pillars are suicide, abortion, cannibalism (of the already dead) and sodomy or any kind of sex that does not procreate! Sodomy is optional but highly recommended. The “church” was formed as a 501 (c) 3 organization is tax deductible. Isn’t this a great nation!

Katie and Robert attend the White Tail Chapel every Sunday–a church for nudists! They were married at White Tail Chapel and say the church has given them a sense of Christian community with “none of the pretense of a traditional church.” Well, the church choir saves money on choir robes; however, the pastor doesn’t preach the naked truth.

“I’m a pastor, but at the end of the day, I’m a man,” declared music minister Dietrich Haddon who shares raw details of relationship failures and fathering a baby out of wedlock. Sure, Dietrich.

Research expert George Barna was on American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues broadcast to discuss what he discovered about pastors. “What we’re finding is that when we ask them about all the key issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, ‘Yes, the Bible speaks to every one of these issues.’ Then we ask them, ‘Well, are you teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues?’—and the numbers drop … to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak to it.” Such pastors should run, not walk, to resign from their churches.

We do not need churches that move with the world but churches that move the world toward righteousness. Alas, most churches are not moving the world.

Consequently, the sheep have fled those churches and have been replaced by goats entertained by clowns.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

While in Chicago, Cassius came under the influence of Malcolm X who encouraged him to join the Black Muslim cult. The cult, which promotes segregation, is known for its hatred of Jews and all white people; however, the group does emphasize family, hard work, and personal morality. Cassius broke with Malcolm when Malcolm broke with the Black Muslims after a trip to Mecca.

The cult leader, Elijah Muhammad, was an angry, hostile man who despised anything associated with Christ. He declared that Christianity was the cause of the black man’s problems and ridiculed Christ’s teaching of loving your enemy. Elijah was a hawker of hate with whom Ali was connected “hip and thigh.

The present longtime leader of the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan is an infamous race baiter. Clay, to his credit, chastened Louis at a Fourth of July celebration in Washington for an ongoing series of threats and insults against Jews. In the 1970s, Ali converted to Sunni Islam, the largest denomination among Muslims worldwide. He was now a little more “respectable.

The Rev. Wanda McIntyre, who led the early service at the King Solomon church last Sunday stated, “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew. When you believe in God, you should believe that all people are part of one family.” That is very gracious but untrue. It is ecumenical but false. Not sure if that is an indication of the spiritual condition of some black Baptist Churches or the individual ravings of an overwrought lady. For sure, a female preacher in a Baptist Church until recent days is almost as unusual as finding a principled politician in Washington.

In the 1960s and 1970s, I thought that Cassius Clay, aka Muhammad Ali was “the greatest.” While I never thought it was very sporting to try to beat the brains out of a man, I must admit that I was intrigued with Ali. He knew exactly what he was doing as he boasted about what he would do to his opponent. He often even prophesized in rhyme the round in which he would defeat his opponent. No question in my mind that he was the greatest boxer of all time and one of the best entertainers of all time. He brought boxing back to life.

But it seems hero worshippers are rushing all over each other to heap accolades upon him. Promoter Bob Arum told the AP Saturday. “He’s the most transforming figure of my time certainly. He did more to change race relations and the views of people than even Martin Luther King.” Well, that was a hyperbolic statement. Millions of Americans hated his conversion to Islam and his refusal to be drafted into the military during the Vietnam era. Even The New York Times refused to use his new name for years but even with all the criticisms Ali made an impact on the world.

His death is lamented by people worldwide and his courage in fighting Parkinson’s is applauded. Moreover, his efforts during his later years to civic service was exemplary. However, the rush of adulation and public mourning is somewhat excessive and almost all have been very selective in telling his story. After all, black heroes can’t have a dark side.

At one time Ali was classified by the military as Class 1-Y since two IQ tests revealed his IQ to be 78–well below the required level to be called unless during a national emergency. When this was revealed, Ali said, “I said I was the greatest, not the smartest.” I think he was smarter than most people thought.

While thousands of young men died in the rice paddies of Viet Nam, Ali refused to serve his country that had provided him the opportunity to become “the greatest.” He was convicted of draft evasion but the case was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, he was stripped of his World Championship title, fined $10,000, and forbidden to box for almost four years.

Ali said, “Man, I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong. Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?” Wow! I never saw Louisville like that but then I’m not black.

In a press conference articulating his opposition to the Vietnam War, Ali declared, “My enemy is the white people, not the Vietcong!” Well, that sounds racist to me. In relation to integration, he said: “We who follow the teachings of Elijah Muhammad [who spent four years in prison for refusing the draft during WWII] don’t want to be forced to integrate. Integration is wrong. We don’t want to live with the white man; that’s all.” And in relation to interracial marriage: “No intelligent black man or black woman in his or her right black mind wants white boys and white girls coming to their homes to marry their black sons and daughters.” I haven’t heard that quote this week.

On a British television show, I heard Ali say that blue birds fly together; red birds fly together, buzzards fly together. And Blacks are more comfortable with other blacks. The British interviewer was almost speechless. Indeed, Ali’s religious beliefs at the time included the notion that the white man was “the devil.” But you won’t hear about any of this during this week.

At Howard University, he gave his popular “Black Is Best” speech to 4,000 cheering students and community leaders, on behalf of the Black Power Committee, a student protest group. “The draft,” he said, “is about white people sending black people to fight yellow people to protect the country they stole from red people.” No, it was about keeping millions of “yellow people” from being enslaved by Communist “yellow people” from the north.

Another time, he declared, “I will not go 10,000 miles from here to help murder and kill another poor people simply to continue the domination of white slave masters over the darker people of the earth.” Almost everyone praised Ali’s “courage” for refusing to fight for his country (or serve as a non-combatant) suggesting that he was a very principled man; however, few are willing to discuss his lack of self-discipline when it came to sexual affairs.

The London Daily Mail bravely opined, “when it came to his private life his morals were those of an alley cat. The way he treated his first three wives and neglected some of his nine (known) children was frankly disgraceful.” Look for a group of Ali’s “love” children to come out of the woodwork in the following days.

Ali has nine children by four different wives and two other relationships and his family is already fighting over the loot that was left. Muhammad’s ex-wife Khalilah reportedly claimed that the champ’s brother Rahman, and son Muhammad, Jr., are accusing Ali’s widow Lonnie of cutting them out of his will. Ali’s son (along with his wife and two children) has been estranged from him and the family and is living in a Chicago garret but his future looks brighter. There is an $80 million pie in the oven as members of the Clay clan assert their claim to a piece of the pie.

Few blacks are talking about Ali’s support of Ronald Reagan in 1984 and his attendance at the Republican National Convention! Of course, Ali was in a huge tax bracket and Reagan promised, preached, and promoted big tax cuts! This support for Republicans caused Andrew Young, Ambassador to the U.N. under Jimmy Carter, Julian Bond and others nightly heartburn.

Muhammed Ali, born Cassius Clay, was an incredible athlete; however, he was a very flawed individual with occasional indications of courage and commitment, but not much character. His color only matters to the racists.

Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.

It is my desire to dispel the myths, delusions, superstitions and lies that are circulating about Patrick. Of course, he did not drive the snakes out of Ireland but his preaching of Christ drove out the pagan Druids and removed human sacrifice; also, his assistants in his “monastery” copied and preserved the Bible and standard texts for us to peruse today. All this while the Roman Empire was crumbling and the dark ages were falling upon Europe and the Roman Church gained more and more power and riches.

Patrick was reared in a Christian home and his father was a deacon in an evangelical (or Baptistic) church. Also, his grandfather pastored in these ancient churches of Britain which had never come under the Roman yoke. An historian wrote more than a hundred years ago, “…the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of…his father.” Under that Christian influence Patrick felt called to go back to Ireland as a missionary to convert those pagan Druids who had enslaved him!

He became one of the most effective missionaries of all time, some think, only second to the Apostle Paul! He refused to take gifts from kings and preached to everyone about the grace of God. Patrick wrote that he “baptized thousands of people,” ordained men to the ministry, counseled and won wealthy women, and sons of kings and trained them for Christian service. He refused to be paid for baptizing people, ordaining preachers, and even paid for the gifts he gave to kings.

He was legally without protection since he refused the patronage of kings and was beaten, robbed, and put in chains. He says that he was also held captive for 60 days but gives no details.

It is only natural that the nascent but growing Roman Church would claim him but it was and is a bogus claim. One historian wrote, “Rome’s most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she ‘annexed’ the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints.” Well said.

Baptists should appreciate the fact that Catholics pay homage to him, even build churches in his honor; however, it is time to realize that Patrick was only a very simple, even untrained Baptist preacher. He was not interested in power or position or possessions but in preaching the simple Gospel of Christ. From my study of him, he would be embarrassed and chagrined that a day in his honor is often turned into a drunken orgy as in Rio and New Orleans.

The early non-Catholic Churches were not called “Baptist” but most preached, practiced, and professed what modern Baptists do.

If Patrick had been a Roman Catholic then somewhere there would be support for that, but there is none. Patrick wrote Confession, or Epistle to the Irish and Epistle to Coroticus and in neither did he refer to Rome. The Breastplate, a hymn is also attributed to him. Not one of his early biographers mentions any Roman connection. Moreover, there is no support for the claim that Pope Celistine sent him to the Irish people.

Furthermore, during his life, the Roman Church was only in embryo form. The Bishop of Rome was not considered the authoritarian he became much later. In fact, church authority was split in five directions: the Patriarchs at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria all claimed to have as much authority as the Roman Bishop!

Professor George T. Stokes, a prominent scholar, declared that before the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish Church was independent, autonomous, and “…dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all.”

Neander’s History of the Christian Church says that the facts “prove the origin of the [Irish] church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain… Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confession; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself.”

Odriscol, who, incidentally, was an Irish Catholic, in his work entitled, Views of Ireland, reveals: “The Christian church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and his predecessors, existed for many ages, free and unshackelled. For 700 years this church maintained its independence. It had no connection with England and differed on points of importance with Rome.” That’s from an Irish Catholic!

Another Irish scholar wrote that “…Leo II was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there.” So, until after 461, the Roman Church had not tried to make Patrick as one of their major “saints.”

Furthermore, the Venerable Bede (Father of English History) did not refer to Patrick in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. That fact is shattering to Patrick’s Roman connection.

Moreover, there are many other proofs that Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic:

He only baptized born again believers–never infants. He wrote about a convert named Enda who was saved the night after his son Cormac was born. He baptized Enda but not his infant son. And in all his letters and his books Patrick never mentions baptizing infants. He wrote of “baptized captives,” “baptized handmaidens of Christ,” baptized believers,” and he wrote, “Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men,…” But never infants.

An additional proof of Patrick being a Baptist was he only baptized by immersion. Various church historians record an incident when 12,000 people were converted and baptized. “Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle [Patrick] entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire.”

Thomas Moore, in his history of Ireland says: “The convert saw in the baptismal fount where he was immersed the sacred well at which his fathers worshipped.”

Archbishop Usher admits: “Patrick baptized his converts in Dublin, including Alpine, the king’s son, in a well near Saint Patrick Church, which in after ages became an object of devotion.”

Famous church historian William Cathcart stated, “There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards.” He also wrote, “There are strong reasons for believing Patrick was a Baptist missionary and it is certain that his Baptism was immersion.” No, Patrick was a Baptist preacher, not a Roman Catholic priest.

Patrick knew nothing of confession or forgiveness by a priest; he forbade worship of images; he never told his converts to pray to Mary or any other “saint”; he never mentions purgatory, holy days, rosary, or last rites. Moreover, Patrick never mentions any pope or cardinal or gives credibility to any creed, catechism or confessional. Nor to Eucharist, relics, or dogma of the Roman Church.

Patrick was not Irish nor was he a Catholic. He preached, practiced, professed, and promoted Baptist distinctives and to declare otherwise is simply Irish blarney.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

I had a very public record of fair treatment for everyone without cutting any additional slack for Blacks. I determined to treat everyone the same so I was against any affirmative action and had debated a black columnist and an Indiana University professor on the subject at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI). I won the debate!

I angered some black leaders and liberal politicians when I cast the lone vote against a “memorialization” of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Indiana House of Representatives. I was the only “no” vote in the House and the senate. Same the following year! An AP reporter asked me why I voted “no” since the vote had no value and was only symbolic. I told her that I did not have time to go into detail, but it was a matter of principle. King was an admitted adulterer and had defended the Communist Viet Cong while Americans were dying in the rice paddies of Southeast Asia. My vote had nothing to do with race or civil rights. That House vote was long before leftists and other non-thinkers rammed a MLK national holiday through congress and clubbed Ronald Reagan into signing it into law in 1983.

In addition to being a member of the House of Representatives, I was also administrator of the Indianapolis Baptist Academy. And of course, we had some black students who had to meet the same standards as the white students. They easily did.

As school administrator I often had my new friend, the famous black preacher, speak at the school and even invited him and his wife to travel with us to Israel and the Middle East–free. I had taken groups to the Middle East for many years and when I organized the school we decided to take the senior class with us for their senior trip! No school, public or private had ever done that. I gave my “earned” tours to the class members and to the black pastor and his wife. He lectured us each night at our hotel after a long day of touring.

Over the years, he and I became friends although he persisted in calling me “Dr. Boys” even though I often chided him for doing so. We had a very normal, friendly, brotherly relationship with never a hint of any problem even though I had a very public reputation as a conservative.

From all indications he was also conservative. In one of our times together he told me of his conversation, maybe confrontation, with black leaders at a national meeting of the NAACP in St. Louis. He told one of the leaders, “Why is the group called the National Association of Colored People? Why not try to advance all people and since I am a part of all, it will advance me?” Those were not his exact words but similar and true to the facts. Well, that impressed me and I wished I had asked that question. So, I assumed we were in agreement on racial issues. I never felt a need to “walk softly” when we were together. He was simply a friend who happened to be black.

Then I spoke at a meeting of clergymen in an eastside suburb and my black friend spoke in the afternoon to the totally white congregation. I might add that he was treated with kindness and affection by the group that represented Indiana Baptist preachers. During his very eloquent (as always) message, he did something that many preachers do: he started chasing rabbits. He shocked us by saying, “You are very pleased to call me brother but fearful and hesitant to call me ‘brother-in-law’ or ‘son-in-law.’” That was the first time my friend had run off the racial rails to my knowledge.

At our lunch meeting a few months later, I asked, “Brother, do you think it is possible for me to believe that forced school bussing is stupid and unfair to Blacks and Whites and affirmative action is unfair and detrimental to Blacks and Whites, and that Martin Luther King was an admitted serial adulterer and did not believe the truths that all Christians believe, and then do you think that believing all that makes me a racist?” He hung his head and said, “Yes, Dr. Boys, I think that makes you a racist!” I was surprised, shocked, and speechless!

My friend is in Heaven now and no longer believes what he said. I am still alive and believe the same thing I believed in that restaurant in 1978. Time changes; circumstances change; people change; but facts remain: all people should be treated like people. No special rights because of race, religion, or gender.

If that makes me a racist in the eyes of some, I can live with it. But all sane, sensible, and smart people can identify the true racists who see everything through racist eyes.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch my eight-minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota on “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Cedarville University is in trouble, but then, we have known that for years. The school had an auspicious beginning in 1953 with the General Association of Regular Baptists (GARB), a group that has stood for biblical truth and ecclesiastical separation from its inception. However, in 2006, the GARB severed association with the university because of the school’s flirting with the inclusive Southern Baptist Convention.

The school has confused many with its interdenominational drift and permitting professors to attend non-Baptist churches even though they signed a Baptist doctrinal statement. Informed people have known for a long time that the University had broken from its Baptist moorings and was drifting rather swiftly with the tide toward mainstream evangelicalism.

There were concerns also about some theological problems at the college. One criticism of Cedarville is their insistence on “certainty” of Bible doctrine instead of the mere assurance of their beliefs. Some of the loosey-goosey faculty declares certainty of doctrine to be arrogance while the true Baptists considered the loosey-goosey crowd as heretics. I stand with the true Baptists.

As of October, 2012 the school lost its president and a vice president resigned after the school was accused of “moving toward a more robust and moderate evangelicalism.” Ten or more professors have felt the call elsewhere since 2007! Two professors were fired in 2007 allegedly because they were too conservative and their firing took place about four months after they signed up to teach another year! They were also challenging some of the more liberal professors during their classes. Additional liberal professors were hired only adding gasoline to the fire. One protest group charges, “The university is moving back toward conservative fundamentalism.” Gasp! It seems that the university is going in opposite directions at the same time!

The charge of moving back to its Fundamentalist roots would be news to those who read the school newspaper arguing that “there was nothing wrong with homosexuality,” and suggesting that “abortion wasn’t a black and white issue.” Also the invitation of a “Christian social activist” who has ties to the Emergent Church to speak on campus added more confusion. Inviting religious gadfly, Jim Wallis to speak didn’t add to the school’s Fundamentalist bona fides. And it didn’t help when they booked the Michael Moore documentary to be aired on campus in 2009. Then the president threw more gasoline on the fire when he put out his Recommended Book List with Emergent Church leader Brian McLaren, New Age guru James Redfield, and Philip Yancey on the list! No, not indications of moving toward fundamentalism!

It is charged by some that the school’s trustees are trying to move the Fundamentalist Baptist institution back toward its roots instead of rushing into the Emerging Church Movement. However, Cedarville “isn’t moving anywhere,” said board chairman Lorne Scharnburg, emphasizing that the Ohio school is an independent Baptist university. “We’re staying where we’ve always been,” declared Scharnburg. Not exactly true since Cedarville has been sipping the New Evangelical Kool-Aid for over a decade.

The two fired professors were given contracts and then fired after a three-day visit of a North Central Accreditation team. Can’t have a dust-up with the snoops on campus. The American Association of University Professors, a nearly100-year old national faculty advocacy group with 45,000 members, got involved and is investigating the firing of one of the professors. Cedarville has declined to cooperate with them. In my opinion, the AAUP never should have been involved; however, there is that always present desire for acceptability–hence, accreditation and affiliation.

No Christian can be pleased with trouble in Christian institutions and no one can defend lying, mistreatment, intrigue, suing other Christians, heresy, etc. Cedarville is one of many examples of some of the problems when a Christian institution (at any level) goes to a secular group for approval, licensure, commissioning, accreditation, etc. God has warned us about joining up with the world. Furthermore, can two walk together unless they are agreed? No secular organization can understand spiritual and doctrinal decisions and should therefore have no authority over churches and Christian schools.

Christian schools do not need the organizational stamp of approval from secular or governmental organizations. It is the kiss of death.

In 2010, a survey of U.S. pastors found Stanley to be the 10th most influential living preacher. In January of 2009, he was one of the speakers at the National Prayer Service following Obama’s first Inauguration. In January of this year, he spoke at the pre-inauguration service attended by Obama, Biden, the cabinet and some members of congress and all their family members.

During his 12-minute message Andy called Obama the “Pastor-in-Chief” for speaking to each family individually following the Sandy Hook murder spree. I think Andy was wrong, maybe sincere, but wrong in both accepting the invitation and praising Obama as “Pastor-in-Chief.” This was an Episcopal service which also had two rabbis attending. He did not “ring the bell” as preachers say.

He said that he purposely chose to speak from the New Testament and not succumb to the temptation of “staying away from Jesus.” For that he is to be commended; however, he chose to speak on Christ washing the Disciples’ feet in John 13. He then said that Jesus was saying, “This is what you’re supposed to do for each other.” Good point; however, the leaders he spoke too had not professed to being born again Christians! There was no proper application to them.

Mark Galli, editor of Christianity Today, asked Stanley if he was not endorsing Obama’s views by preaching at that service. Andy said that if Christ had been fearful of guilt by association, He would not have come to earth. He added, “So I do not make decisions based on guilt by association. I grew up in a culture that was all about that.” Like many New Evangelicals, Andy took the opportunity to take a swat at his Fundamentalist background. However, he is wrong. The Fundamentalist culture is not “all about that.” Committed Christians are concerned about associations as well as actions and affirmations.

Furthermore, he is wrong about guilt by association. If you wallow with dogs, you will get up with fleas–scratching. Solomon warned in Proverbs 2:20, “That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous.” We are not to shun evil men but never give them any support in their evil words, works, or ways. Solomon should have heeded his own warning.

Andy said he would refuse to pray at a bill signing that was contrary to biblical principles but not for something as general as the Inauguration. He added, “I have people in my congregation who have far more disturbing views than he does. I preach to them every week!” Andy is a better thinker than that. He knows there is a massive difference in his giving his stamp of approval at the political event and his preaching to people who have walked into his church!

Stanley makes the same mistake other religious leaders make. Our major responsibility is not to reach people with the message of Christ, as important as that is, but we are to do right in all matters, even if we reach no one. Serving Christ is not about crowds, cash, or converts. It is about obedience–doing right even when no one understands or tries to understand.

I wonder if Andy would have spoken or prayed at the wedding of King Herod whose daddy was the infamous Baby Butcher of Bethlehem. There was a “little” problem in that Herod had divorced his wife and taken his half-brother’s former wife. What a mess. But it was a big chance to reach people for Christ. However, I’m sure John the Baptist was absent that day. In fact, he would not have been invited since everyone knew he taught the truth.

No doubt, many preachers would have numbed their consciences and been thrilled to “give the invocation” for the occasion. Mark 6:20 reveals, “For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.” It is obvious that King Herod had some connections with John, even doing “many things” and was pleased to hear him preach. But like many men, he did not listen and obey the message he heard.

Herod had taken his brother’s wife and was living in adultery. John, not interested in climbing the clergy ladder, told him it was sinful. Not a good career move. At Herod’s birthday party (no Baptist preachers were there; although John was nearby–in prison), Salome did her lewd, seductive dance and Herod promised her anything she wanted. Having been prompted by her wicked mother, she asked for John’s head. She got it. And John got his ticket stamped for Heaven. Herod chose to decapitate John rather than displease his wife.

No, Andy Stanley and similar preachers are not in the mold of Elijah, Ezekiel, or John. Those prophets were addicted to truth, and did not try to walk a tightrope between right and wrong. They could not be bought. They were able to say “no’ to evil and “yes” to God. No doubt they would have challenged modern politicians by name to forsake wickedness, adultery, perversion, and lying.

Most preachers today don’t say yes or no, thereby not making anyone angry. They have developed a new word that means anything to everyone: Yo.