The “separatists” say that the corruption is too bad and they must leave as a protest and associate with others who are willing to practice biblical beliefs. The “stay-inners” are not willing to make the break with a lifetime association. Many don’t agree with denominational leaders but will stay in and fight the doctrinal corruption and refuse to conform to the unscriptural rituals. They are willing to work and fellowship with those who hold a low view of Scripture. We have seen this before: separatists verses nonconformists.

In church history, a nonconformist or dissenter was anyone in England who belonged to the Church of England but disagreed with it. Such people were militant advocates of religious freedom. They were banned from being in the military, civil work, or any college. So, the nonconformists started their own schools. Nonconformists were principled people who paid a price for their stand; however, they should have departed from apostate denominations. People who did leave were separatists.

The “stay-inners” (or nonconformists) were called “Puritans” and they were highly disciplined people who tried to reform or purify the Church of England from within the membership and Pilgrims were highly disciplined people who left or were never part of that denomination. They were separatists and later called “Congregationalists,” believing that each church was independent and autonomous. That is the biblical position and the position that all Baptists take.

Devoted Christian leaders had been seeking, even demanding, a reformation in the Church of England for a hundred years. The Protestant Reformation made an incredible impression on Europe but had limited impact on England. Puritans, seeking to purify the church from within, longed for a change especially by removing the trappings of the Roman Church. These Puritans had worked their way into places of power in the Church of England and remained in power because there was a consensus on the “the true profession of the gospel … the Protestant Reformed religion.” Because of that one basic agreement, the Puritans were fairly safe in their positions and many were highly admired scholars. They disagreed with the liturgical and doctrinal positions of the Church of England but were willing to “put up with it” for the sake of unity, peace, and convenience. That is the argument of all “stay-inners.”

About this time, King Charles I declared war on Scotland and asked Parliament to fund it but he was opposed by many, including Oliver Cromwell (an Independent Puritan) and a masterful military leader although without any military training. Charles’ policies were so hated that 30,000 Englishmen fled for the New World during his reign. After winning the Battle of Marston Moor, Cromwell became a highly admired hero by the soldiers and society. After another glorious military victory Cromwell was even more idolized and King Charles I was arrested! Cromwell was a major proponent of the beheading of the King in 1649.

Separatists left (or were never part of) the state church and supported Oliver Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England during 1653 to 1658. Sadly, Cromwell became an extremist closing the theaters and banning most sports. Children playing on Sunday afternoon were whipped. Adults were fined for swearing and for repeated cases, jailed. Makeup was prohibited and women wearing makeup had their faces scrubbed on the streets. The man who came to power being loved, was soon hated and died of malaria in September of 1658. It was said that, although not a king (he had refused the title), he wielded more power and authority than any king.

He wanted to restore morality but he used the law to accomplish his commendable desire. He was a good example of a good man out of control. His enthusiasm for morality trampled on the rights of others and his Puritan sympathies were obvious in his decisions and appointments. Yet, in a 2002 BBC poll in Britain, Cromwell was selected as one of the ten greatest Britons of all time! Even his biggest critics admit that Cromwell’s rule was the beginning of democracy in England.

When Charles II came to the throne in a restored monarchy, he had Cromwell’s body dug up, tried for treason and regicide, thrown on a garbage heap, and his head displayed on a spike outside Westminster Hall for decades as a warning to others. With the monarchy restored in 1660 the other religious bigots (Bishops of the Church of England) were back in control.

The newly crowned King Charles II desired tranquility and asked “can’t all of us just get along” but the Church of England thugs thought it was payback time. They wanted Puritan blood–and they got it. The punitive Act of Uniformity 1662 required all preachers to be ordained in the Church of England. The preachers who refused to comply were called nonconformists and dissenters but they were still in the Church of England. However, the act applied to separatist Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, etc.

In the 1600s, the government of England started losing control in Wales when hundreds of independent churches and chapels were established by Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others who refused to conform to the established church. The nonconformists and separatists were gaining too much influence in England and Wales so the Bishop-controlled Parliament decided to bring them under control. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 required all ministers to assent to the rites and liturgy of the Established Church. In fact, all clergy, college professors, and schoolmasters had to agree with everything in the Book of Common Prayer! However, few knew what was in the new edition but they had to agree anyway!

All who refused to follow the common prayer book were ejected from the Church. Out of approximately 10,000 preachers throughout the country, about 2,500 were ejected (and some went to jail) but 20% to 25% of the country continued to worship illegally, holding secret services in barns and other unapproved locations. This was known as the Great Ejection of 1662. Such people, both preachers and laymen, paid a price for their principled decision for about 150 years. All the nonconformists who disagreed with the Church should have become separatists.

Another act, the Quaker Act of 1662, required subjects to swear an oath of allegiance to the king, which separatists and nonconformists did not do because of religious convictions. The Puritans did not want to perjure themselves to satisfy the newly restored Bishops. The Puritans had made oaths to reform the church in Cromwell’s day; and they could not swear an opposite oath to satisfy the Bishops that they agreed with every single word of the liturgy. But it got worse.

In 1664, the Conventicle Act was passed that forbade conventicles (a meeting for unauthorized worship) of more than 5 people who were not members of the same household. The obvious purpose was to keep the nonconformists and separatists from meeting. It got even worse.

In 1665, the Five Mile Act was passed forbidding nonconformist ministers, who were forbidden from coming within five miles of incorporated towns or the place where they previously lived. They were also forbidden to teach in schools. The screws were getting tighter.

The king, remembering his daddy had lost his head, wanted to be less severe–even showing tolerance; however the Bishops were adamant: the law must be enforced to the letter. With the religious bigots back in control, they were merciless now that they were in the catbird seat.

The bigots are still in control but they are called “Progressives” or more correctly, radical leftists. They have silenced most of the clergy who don’t really believe anything; they have intimidated and sedated ordinary citizens; they climbed into bed with Hollywood and the media; and they have taken the culture captive.

Many outstanding Christian leaders refused to leave corrupt denominations such as John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, who died in the Church of England. Clarence E. McCartney died still loyal to the Presbyterian USA, and W. A. Criswell and Adrian Rogers died loyal to the Southern Baptist Convention. All were among the greatest preachers who ever lived, yet refused to be a separatist. They refused to conform to the norm but did not break with corruption.

It is time for Christian leaders to bite the bullet and “come out from among them and be separate” paying the price such people have always paid. If they do that, then it won’t be the Great Ejection but the Great Rejection as they flee corrupt churches in protest.

Principled people who believe the Bible must flee false, failed, and fraudulent churches.

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!”

The committee hearing room at the Capitol Building was packed, mostly with the media and opponents to my bill to reinstate sodomy as a crime as it had been in Indiana for about a hundred years. My opponents all had their allotted time to oppose my bill and one was a professor at Indiana University. He said that homosexuals “only wanted to be left alone.” I laughed.

In defense of my bill I told him that sodomy should be a crime again to give police officials authority to stop the cruising in city parks, sex in public restrooms, and discourage molesting of little boys. I ended by saying that homosexuals want much more than to be left alone. “They want respectability. They want to move into a house in the suburbs, park matching Volvos in the driveway and be accepted as normal people; but that won’t happen as long as Christians live in this state.” In recent years, homosexuals have demanded and received not only acceptance and approval, but even applause. We are told it is even commendable and courageous to practice perversion! And even Bible-oriented church leaders have joined the chorus!

Obviously, I was wrong! Evangelical church members are leading the parade for same sex “marriage” and doing it claiming they are true followers of Christ. However, sodomy is a tragedy and Christians’ defense of that sin is a tragedy within a tragedy.

Never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few. This surrender proves that when Christians’ faith and a controversial issue are at odds, weak Christians fold. After all, one must be modern, cool, and “with it.”

It’s a fact, “The Times They Are A-Changing” (just listened to it all the way through for the first time!) especially in the area of courtesy, courage, and commitment. To their credit, the Homosexual Lobby has performed an absolutely incredible coup d’état in about 20 years by changing America’s attitude about sodomy. Sodomy was defined by Noah Webster in the 1800s as a “crime against nature.” The 1833 Encyclopedia Britannica identified sodomy as “The nameless crime, which was the disgrace of Greek and Roman civilization.”

Today, one is anathematized if he even uses the words “sodomy,” “degenerate,” or “pervert.” And while “same sex marriage” was not even considered possible, even worth discussing by decent people only five years ago, one is considered unloving, unkind, uneducated, and uncivil if he advocates the quaint notion that marriage is only between a man and a woman. And he is super-quaint if he holds that marriage is for a lifetime! He may also become unemployed for his belief in biblical decency. Yes, times are a-changing.

Guide is a homosexual magazine that published a pro-pedophile editorial in its July, 1995 issue. It referred to pedophiles as “prophets” of sexual freedom! The editorial opined: “We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-sexual rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers (sic), demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. We must do it for the children’s sake.”  Of course, always “for the children’s sake.” Hand me a barf bag!

Love is not the justification for marriage. If that were true then three or four people can be married since they “love” each other. Or, a man could “love” his goat but few sane people would approve such an arrangement. Why could not a man marry his son thereby circumventing estate taxes? While sane people find that possibility abhorrent, it can be justified with warped, wicked, and wanton thinking. After all, the most persuasive case against incest is the danger of reproduction.

But then, who knows? Many professing Christians or church members would come to his defense! And therein lies the rub. The reason the Homosexual Lobby captured society (especially the media, education, and government) is because church members have become unprincipled, uncaring, uncourageous, and are now unnecessary. Many Christians have no problem with “the love that dare not speak its name.”

Christians have been bullied, badgered, and blackmailed into accepting the homosexual lifestyle or is that death style? However, the Bible condemns this perversion; furthermore, it also condemns those who defend perversion: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil…” (Isaiah 5:20). That’s where we are today.

So, the problem is not only with moral perversion but the cowardly capitulation of Christians who remain silent about the evil or even defend it! Above all, they must be perceived by their friends as loving, modern, cool, and hip. Such “Christians” should be kicked out their churches if they do not repent. It seems that some civic clubs have higher standards than some churches.

A good illustration of this principle was recounted in a Chattanooga area church where a mother was required to choose between her church (where she had attended for 60 years) and her lesbian daughter. The daughter had successfully advocated to make government benefits available to same sex “spouses.” Her family supported her homosexual advocacy. Church officials met with the mother and two other relatives and told them “They could repent for their sins and ask forgiveness in front of the congregation. Or leave the church.” Well finally, a church that practices church discipline. Of course, for doing so, they are called “unloving,” “haters,” and “bigots.” That’s easier than dealing with the issue.

The lesbian daughter whined, “Literally, they’re exiling members for unconditionally loving their children – and even extended family members.” Her dad told CNN, “Loving her daughter and supporting her family was not a sin.” Dad declared, “There was nothing to repent about.” He added. “They certainly couldn’t judge her on that because that was between her and her God, and it was not their place to judge her for that.”

I am not without sympathy for the family; however, Scripture must rule, not sentimentalism. Principled people do what is right even when it hurts. The family was not being judged for “unconditionally loving” but for defending perversion. Moreover, it was the church’s place or right, even obligation, to make a judgment. The family refused to repent and left the church.

The church was not demanding that the family turn their back on their daughter but to turn their back on her sin. There is a difference. We don’t make decisions about right and wrong depending on our relationship to a person.

For Christians to defend and declare homosexuality as acceptable rather than denounce it is a major tragedy within a tragedy.

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!”

White students at Maryland’s Towson University want to start a White Student Union but are being opposed by bigots who are very supportive of their Black Student Union and similar groups. But not one for Whites! The organizer, Matthew Heimbach said “We want to replicate what every student union does on campus.” He pointed out that Blacks promote their heroes (usually those from the far, far left of the political spectrum) and the white students want to promote their heroes (hopefully those who were decent, productive, and balanced).

College officials are stonewalling! We have seen this before and it amazes me that Liberals cannot see their double standard and sheer hypocrisy. Of course, the ADL has crawled out of their cave to scream “bigotry” at those white students who want the same thing other groups have!

Why is it commendable for Blacks, Hispanics, and others to loudly proclaim their ethnicity, but when a white person does so, everyone treats him like a bigot? Recently, I saw video of a young Martin Luther King Jr. who declared, “I am proud to be black. Black is beautiful. Someone needs to say it.” Why is it right for King to say it about being black but wrong for Heimbach and me to say the same thing about being white? I will expect an answer from my critics.

Non-thinkers/racists/Liberals are now defending their racism by calling Heimbach and me racists! That’s like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath! Not too swift but no one says racists/Liberals are very sharp or honest people. They are fanatics and totally committed to their radical agenda.

This is an issue that no one wants to deal with–the proverbial elephant sitting in a formal living room and everyone pretends it isn’t there! While I don’t want to be identified with the white supremacist crowd or the clowns of the KKK, I do think it is not only right but also desirable to be proud of our heritage–whatever our heritage is.

My being proud of being a white Christian does not reflect badly on those who don’t fit that description, and my love for my wife and family and my considering them the best does no harm and is no criticism of others who don’t agree. Just because you think your wife is more beautiful than mine and your children and grandchildren are the brightest and most loveable does not make you a bigot. You are simply wrong, since mine are! Most sane people would agree that that attitude is completely normal. It would be abnormal if that were not true.

Blacks, Indians, Latin Americans, etc., should be proud of their race, after all God made them that way. So would you mind if I believe that Whites should feel the same about being white? I hope the racists out there will forgive me for pointing out that white Christians (along with some scoundrels) came to this continent and discovered a land of forests, swamps, and tribes of warring Indians. There were no roads, no businesses, no churches, no hospitals, no airports, and no factories, and not one Chick-fil-A! Our ancestors drained the swamps, built log cabins and churches, planted crops, dug copper, coal, gold, and silver from the ground, built railroads, attempted to civilize the warring Indians (and made friends of the friendly Indians) and established a land of freedom and incredible opportunity like nowhere on earth. My critics will point out the mistakes and excesses which I am willing to admit; but I will add the many failures of the Indians and others, proving mankind’s fallen nature.

Justin J. Moritz, a white, retired police officer, with no criminal record was refused a patent for “White Pride” by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because it “is considered offensive and therefore scandalous.” There is no justification for the USPTO to reject a patent for “White Pride” after approving Black Pride, African Pride, Asian Pride, Chippewa Pride, Gay Pride, Indian Pride, and many other “prides.” Can anyone defend such offensive policies and obvious discrimination? Only a racist would defend such a practice and only a fool would try.

I have defended minority people and groups all my life. I have demanded that people be treated like people. If all people are treated with respect, kindness, thoughtfulness, and graciousness, then everyone benefits. I do not endorse or support the NAACP because they are racist in seeking the benefit of “colored” people. Why not seek the advancement of people? Need civil rights leaders be reminded that the “Jim Crow” days are long gone? If we seek the advancement of everyone, that will cover Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, etc.

All my adult life I have detested unfairness, discrimination, narrow mindedness, political correctness, and cowardice. I am ashamed to say that national and state politicians, plus those in academia and the media, plus many evangelical Christians are guilty of all the above.

If sanity, fairness, and common sense prevail (BIG assumption) then Matthew Heimbach will get his White Student Union.

But don’t count on it. Liberals in academia don’t major on sanity, fairness, and common sense.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Politicians, professors, preachers, pundits, perverts, and ordinary people packed the committee room at the Indiana State Capital in October of 1978. The occasion was the introduction of my bill to make sodomy illegal again in Indiana, as it had been for a hundred years. In fact, I used the same language that was the original law before radicals repealed it a couple years before I was elected to the Indiana House of Representatives.

After I made my case for the bill, quoting classic studies from highly reputable experts that supported my position that homosexuals are not “born that way,” do recruit, do molest far more than heterosexuals do, and are very dangerous people, the chairman asked for comments. Two preachers came to my defense then the opposition from Indiana University, the media, and academia came down hard on me and my bill. You might think that I was suggesting cameras in every bedroom and stringing up homosexuals from the maple trees on the capital lawn. Or, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, that they be castrated! No, I only suggested 12 years in prison as had been the law for many years.

A professor spoke in defense of sodomy enumerating some famous homosexuals in history. All he proved was that some famous people in history were sexual deviates! No one disputes that. Some famous people in history were drunks, child molesters, thieves, wife beaters, and killers. I could not restrain myself and laughed in his face and into the cameras when the professor declared that King David and Jonathan “were lovers,” (something I had never heard before that time). Sorry, but it was so outrageous, it was funny. He then did it again when he said that God did not destroy Sodom because of sodomy but (are you ready for this?) it was because the Sodomites were not hospitable to their visitors! I still have his handout making his position.

Perverts (perfectly good word) made the pitch that they were not looking for special rights. They only wanted to be left alone. They wanted to move to a nice suburban home with a picket fence, park matching Volvos in the driveway, and live happily ever after. “Just leave us alone.” I suggested that they wanted far more than that. I said, “You want the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval upon your wicked lifestyle, but you’ll not get it as long as Bible believing Christians are around.” (The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval guarantees the reliability of products advertised in their magazine and has done so since 1909.)

I may have been wrong because it seems the constant assault by the media, the brainwashing by the public schools, and the failure on the part of churches to teach biblical truth have won the day for perverse living. No longer are the sodomites the bad guys corrupting society but those who warn against them are perceived as “haters” and “bigots.” I tell the truth about sodomy and am called a hater and those who twist the truth like a pretzel are perceived as noble, kind, and liberal. Homosexuals along with liberal politicians will lie, distort, connive, and conspire to make what any sane person knows is abnormal and unnatural into something that is legal, acceptable, even desirable! It is a strange, strange world!

Even many religious leaders tell us that the Bible is not clear and after all, few juries would send someone to jail for “loving another way.” However, they don’t understand that it is a matter of truth; moreover, with anti-sodomy laws, there would be prosecution for restroom recruiting, cruising, etc.

If Wisconsin had had an anti-sodomy law, the police could have saved many lives from being snuffed out by sodomite Jeffrey Dahmer who molested and killed at least 17 boys, then had sex with them, then ate some of them. One night, one of them escaped and ran into the street naked, drugged, and bleeding from his rectum. Jeff went after him and noticed that his lover had been stopped by the cops. Jeff told them his “19-year old lover” (who was really 14-years-old) and him had had a spat and the kid was returned to Jeff (who was characterized by a Roman Catholic nun as a “boy with a good heart”). Within hours, the boy was dead, his body partly eaten by the “boy with a good heart”! Seven skulls, a heart, several severed hands and penises were found in his apartment! If Wisconsin had had an anti-sodomy law, they could have arrested Dahmer.

My bill did not pass because of wimpish Republicans who joined with Democrats to kill it in committee. They also killed common sense.

The Federal Government is considering the outcome of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill that would penalize decent Christians and protect pedophiles and would make this column illegal and expose me to a prison term. So be it.

Bring back anti-sodomy laws in each state. At least it might keep some of them deep inside the closet if they aren’t in prison and that’s better than nothing.

President Harry Truman was a Baptist, but not a very good one; however, what he learned from his church, his grandmother, and his Bible sure affected millions of people on earth, especially Israel. When Israel declared itself a nation on May 14, 1948, Truman was the first world leader to recognize the new state (within eleven minutes of its birth!) against the advice of all his advisors except one. He did it knowing that leading Democrats and most of his close advisors and both the State and War Departments (remember that?) were against the recognition. His religion formed his decision and impacted the world. Yet fools tell us a man’s religion doesn’t matter!

Now we come to Romney. He is a Mormon and has every right to believe what he chooses. Remember that his family is and has been Mormon for generations. Of course Mormonism is a cult, and Billy Graham was way off base when he tried to “uncult” it. Neither Graham, nor anyone else, has the authority to do that. Mormonism has always been identified as a cult by even mushy Christians and I’m not sure how necessary it is to point out some of their beliefs. But I will.

Mormons believe that any human can become a god, and they teach that Adam was actually God who took on a body and this Adam-God (Michael the Archangel) had a physical sexual relationship with the Virgin Mary producing the baby Jesus (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857). Another bizarre doctrine of the Mormons is that Satan and Jesus are brothers. Additionally, all Mormons will have their own planets to populate with their numerous wives! While those are considered weird beliefs, they would cause no harm to our nation.

No doubt Graham’s promotion of Romney gave a clear signal for all Christians to vote for Romney. I am delighted with that result while I am dismayed that Christians would rally to a candidate simply because Graham supports him. That is the herd instinct that I have been so critical of in others. Many Christians have enormous respect for Graham’s worldwide ministry. While I respect his early preaching, clean life, and punctilious financial record, I have always disagreed with his willingness to accept support from outspoken unbelieving ministers, including Roman Catholics, in his city-wide campaigns. Most Christians will disagree with me, even questioning my motives, but I can live with that.

Christians should be informed on the issues and the Bible. No informed Christian can vote for Obama for many, many reasons. He is a compulsive liar, a man who can tell four lies in a sentence of five words–like Bill Clinton. Obama is a Muslim sympathizer (at least) who has not repudiated Sharia law. In fact, he has been unable to say, “Muslim terrorist” as if it is an untrue statement. He bows to Muslim leaders and betrays Christians, kissing our foes and kicking our friends. He is a strong advocate of abortion on demand funded by taxpayer dollars. Then he hit the bottom when he decided to publicly champion same-sex marriage.

Black Christians are fleeing Obama because of the homosexual issue. They were thrilled to have a Black in the Oval Office but cannot support him further because he climbed into bed with the perverts. Those black leaders should be congratulated for their courage. I think they should have refused to vote for him at any time under any circumstances, but that’s another matter.

It is neither fair nor accurate to compare Romney with loony Communist nuts like Jim Jones or the cultist David Koresh who was shot and incinerated along with 54 adults and 28 children by the U.S. Government for their cultic beliefs. Being weird or cultic does not justify federal murder of U.S. citizens.

Romney believes some weird things; however, he will not be our pastor, but our president. I think he is a man of character, totally honest, very intelligent, a hard worker, with unusual experiences, a strong family man, moderately conservative–all that Obama is not.

I have very close, long-time friends who refuse to vote for Romney and will cast their vote for a non-winnable candidate. They would say that their decision is based on principle but it is a flawed principle. We have always elected flawed presidents! The question is: who is less flawed and will lead America to give us a few more years of relative peace and security? I am convinced that the U.S. and the free world are going over the cliff but Obama will drive us over at 100 miles per hour. Romney may provide a respite from galloping socialism, frantic money printing, our cop-of-the-world attitude, the approaching depression followed by rampant inflation, the butchering of babies, and turning American into Sodom with Gomorrah as a major suburb.

Martin Luther declared, “I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.” I would rather be “ruled” by a principled Mormon than a prevaricating Muslim.

Here is one Baptist Fundamentalist who will vote for Mitt Romney. I doubt that he will move all federal offices to Salt Lake City and make the Mormon top honcho his Secretary of State.

Come to think of it, the top honcho could do a better job than Hillary.