Barry had two children during his first marriage, and he married the second time to Sara Pentz, a television news reporter. Sara often appeared with him on the show and was as kind as Barry. He emailed me saying, “I’m from Greensboro, North Carolina; 29 miles from Winston-Salem and my ‘bride’ (September 3, 2008) is a Protestant from Columbus, Ohio, and she never dated a Jew OR a Southerner until we met. I introduced her to grits. I’ve never had better; Sara hits just the right consistency, not too watery or too concrete. However, I must have given her a hasty briefing when I first brought grits home from the supermarket, because to this day, Sara calls grits, ‘That Jewish breakfast food.’

“Oh, dear. You got me going. They tell of the rabbi who arrived for a speech in Anniston, Alabama, and to his delight and amazement, there was a kosher delicatessen right across from the train station. He thought he’d be in gastronomical exile until he got back to New York, but the waitress brought him a huge platter of corned beef, pastrami, kishke, stuffed halse, braunschweiger, hamentashen—and in the middle, a huge pile of gleaming grits.

“‘Excuse me,’ said the Rabbi. ‘Could you tell me what THAT is?’ he said, pointing to the grits.

“‘That’s grits,’ answered the local non-Jewish waitress in a thick Southern accent. ‘I don’t know WHAT in the h*** the rest of that stuff is!’”

The New York Daily News reported Barry as a native of Baltimore; however, he grew up in Greensboro, North Carolina. He loved and respected the South, especially North Carolina. Usually, when we ended a conversation, he would often say, “Please give your beautiful wife from Forsyth County [Winston Salem] my regards.”

He emailed me once saying, Please thank your Mrs. for being so nice to me over the phone. Not only does she sound unusually friendly, but friendly in the tones of my Old South!”

He told me of being the only Jew in the Greensboro Public School System and listening to the Bible being read and the singing of Christian hymns. He said, “I didn’t think that was unusual since they were Christians. That’s what one would expect.”

David Kupelian, managing editor of the major news website WorldNetDaily said, “The best talk hosts have the mysterious ability to draw the very best out of their guests, and that was Barry. He was unfailingly warm, gracious, knowledgeable, fresh, and effusively but genuinely enthusiastic about and interested in his guests.”

David is right on target. I appeared as a guest on Barry’s nightly talk show out of New York City at least 55 times over the years, and Barry was the epitome of kindness, graciousness, and professionalism. He never interrupted me or suggested that I not hit a forbidden button. I was never restricted once, although he got some major flak from some sponsors when I used the word, nigger, citing it as an offensive word “that my children never heard in our home.”

Then I ridiculed the publications, both liberals and conservatives who substitute the silly “n-word” rather than using the offensive word in a non-offensive manner. Barry also permitted me to deal rather vividly with homosexuality and Martin Luther King, Jr. issues two or three times. Any talk show host willing to tell the truth about those two issues is not only current, correct, but courageous.

After my column on homosexuality, he wrote, “The purpose of this hasty note is, NEVER BEFORE have I ever READ under a valid by-line, descriptions like yours! I not only agree with you, but I fiercely admire your guts, particularly in this age when political correctness rules!” He then invited me to do a show on the subject.

Barry Farber was the poster boy for courage. He would tackle any subject without fear. He emailed me about my column dealing with Federal money going to disaster victims. He wrote, “This is the most courageous column I’ve ever read. If you’ve got the guts to write it, I’ve got the guts to talk about it with you. Okay?”

We talked about giving tax dollars away without any constitutional right to do so however great the need and however popular it might be. I also used Davy Crockett’s courageous stand as a U.S. Congressman against “free” money.

Talkers magazine publisher Michael Harrison said: “Barry Farber was one of the founding fathers of talk radio whose influential career spanned both the modern and pre-modern eras of the format. He described his longevity in the business as ‘being big in the old days and old in the big days.’ He was among the finest public speakers of his time and a true wordsmith who served as an inspiration for generations of broadcasters who strived to be artists as well as communicators.”

Michael hit the bull’s eye.

Barry was a best-selling author of 14 books in over 30 foreign languages with over one million copies sold. He also wrote articles appearing in The New York Times, Reader’s Digest, The Washington Post, and the Saturday Review, plus he was a regular columnist for the major news website WorldNetDaily (WND).

His first talk show began in 1960 called Barry Farber’s WINS Open Mike. It was the only talk show on what was then a rock n’ roll station and was on weeknights at 11 p.m. He left that job for an evening talk show on WOR in 1962 and became the all-night host in 1967. Barry wrote, “I was told I kept more people up nights than Mexican food.”

In 1990, he became a national talk-show host on the ABC Radio Network, and in 1991 he was named “Talk Show Host of The Year” by the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts. Farber was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 2014.

As Sean Hannity said of Farber: “He blazed the trail for all of us today in talk radio.” Well, Joe Pyne was the first to hit the big time in Los Angeles in 1967, reaching ten million listeners daily. But Joe was a “shock jock” comparable to Morton Downey, Jr. who often yelled at his guests and blew smoke in their faces. I did the Downey show a few times, and he was always very kind to me even when the subject was AIDS, and his brother was dying of the disease. Barry was much too sophisticated and gracious to use shock antics simply to spike his ratings—and revenue.

Barry spoke or studied more than 25 languages, and he used that ability when he was assigned to the National Security Agency as a Russian translator in 1952. After serving in the Korean War, he became a journalist. In 1956, while serving a correspondent in Europe, he covered the Hungarian revolt against Soviet occupation.

My appearances on his show were always a highlight of my day giving me an opportunity to talk about my books or columns or website. Some talk show hosts are fearful that their guests might sell a few books or draw readers to their blog or website. Barry was very generous in promoting his guests.

In the beginning, he insisted on calling me “Dr. Boys” and going on to provide my bona fides, providing some credibility for the audience. He was always formal on the air with “Dr.” or “Rev.” or “Dr. Rev.” however, in conversation and emails he ended up calling me “Don” or “Dr. Don.”

Barry and I agreed, as far as I know, on all the social, financial, and political issues. Of course, we disagreed about religion; after all, he was an outspoken (yet not obnoxious) Jew, and I’m an outspoken (yet not obnoxious, seldom) Fundamentalist Christian. He often gave me an open door to express my biblical views on many issues.

While Barry dealt with controversy, he didn’t seem to have an agenda. I do. I want to make the Gospel aware, available, and to be accepted by the world. Barry often aggressively opened the door for me to make the Gospel, or Christmas, or Easter very clear to every listener. Of course, he knew that was my agenda. Furthermore, I want to give every liberal constant heartburn and insomnia as I prove that they are the most untruthful, unfair, and unnecessary people on earth.

Barry emailed me, saying, “You don’t have to be Christian to love your spirited, slashing, and totally successful defense of God. You don’t need a Divinity degree from Harvard to get all your points [regarding evolution]. Flat tires may just happen; [but] not a universe. I’ve never understood how an atheist could survive any ten minutes of a basic astronomy course.”

Today, I realized that I can read scores of Barry’s emails if I ever get discouraged, despondent, or simply down, and I can get a quick boost from Barry’s hyperboles. There is no way I can get away with using some of his milder compliments to me, but I’ll try.

He wrote, “Dear Dr. Don, Your energy is a great crowd-pleaser, audience-builder, and argument-winner. If we could tie a string around your waist and dip you into the Hudson River like a tea-bag at around 79th Street, within half an hour, you’d have SODA WATER from the Statue of Liberty to the George Washington Bridge!”

“Who says only idiots stand up and cheer and howl with laughter — in their own apartments. I’ve been trying for half an hour already to calm down enough to thank you and congratulate you on what may be the best column ever written!…Great job, Dear Friend. Pretend this is an invitation for any night next week — 8 to 9 Eastern — and if you like my column a tiny fraction as much as I like yours, I’ll be as proud as a dog with a hem-stitched tail!”

Or, “You are absolutely the kindest and most generous, and you really know how to elevate the spirits without illegal substances!”

Or, “Don, this piece ought to become part of the Constitution! And as is. No amendments!”

Or, this one about gun control. “This is one of the greatest pieces ever written. I’ll be calling!”

I could go on and on for pages, but someone out there might accuse me of OVER tooting my own horn, and I’m a very sensitive guy! Surely, I wouldn’t be so shameless to do that. But then, if I don’t toot my horn, no one else will now. And, it is my horn to toot.

Yes, my friend died last night, and I wept today.

I am so thankful my path crossed with Barry Faber many times over the years and for the opportunity to express my appreciation for his friendship.

After all, my Best Friend is a Jew, and He is still alive.

(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 a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

The magazine author (who self-identifies as “Politically, I’m quite conservative, but I’m also a gay vegetarian”) declared that “transgenders” are “entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else.” However, the doctrine of transgenderism is weird, warped, and wrong, but he suggests we capitulate to a lie that would sentence “transgenders” to a life of regret and possible suicide!

It is long past time for people of principle to take a firm stand for truth even if it stings and alienates. That stand for principle must be done in high places although President Trump, loose on morals himself, took a stand for perversion when he asked Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal and openly “gay” to be a main speaker at the GOP Convention. During his speech, Thiel declared, “I am proud to be gay.” Hand me a barf bag.

And, recently Vice President Mike Pence has taken the same or similar compromising position by swearing in an openly “gay” ambassador!

Vice President Mike Pence officiated at the swearing in ceremony of Richard Grenell to be the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. Grenell is the highest “gay” official in the U.S. Government. Pence called him “uniquely qualified” for the post. Did Pence compromise his Christian commitment in officiating?

Pence is hated by the LGBT crowd for his pro family positions taken during his long and public career.

Furthermore, he did not gain any “points” with them for his part in sending a homosexual and his lover to Berlin to represent the American government! The only way to gain acceptability from the LGBT crowd is total acceptance, not just toleration, of their agenda. Consequently, they have bullied, badgered, and blackmailed shallow people into accepting, approving, and applauding the homosexual lifestyle as normal if not desirable.

Pence had clearly declared, “Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.” Good. He has also opposed same-sex “marriage” legislation. Very good. He supported the Federal Marriage Amendment which sought to officially define marriage as between one man and one woman. Another good move; but has he changed his opinion?

Has Mike Pence flip-flopped on his belief that being “gay” was a choice and his opposition to same sex marriage was not discrimination but an enforcement of “God’s idea” of a man and a woman as a family construct?

He favored the military policy of not permitting soldiers to come out of the closet and said he did not want to see the military become a “backdrop for social experimentation.”

He also opposed Obama’s directive to require students to use the rest room of the gender with which they identified saying, “The federal government has no business getting involved in issues of this nature.” Right again.

However, we are aware of his embarrassing flip-flop on the Indiana bill to protect Christian businesspeople who refused to support the LGBT agenda. Yes, the heat from the sports people, business people, academia, and even the religious left was unbearable; but then if you can’t stand the heat, you stay out of the kitchen. Mike caved and the LGBT crowd still hates him.

Of course, many people see no problem with perversion; however, Bible believers and even those only influenced by the Bible know that homosexuality has always been proscribed in every civilization. Homosexuality was wrong yesterday, is wrong today, and will be wrong tomorrow no matter what any court or authority might decide. However, stating that fact can be dangerous for its advocate. It might even cost one a political position.

Author George Orwell wrote, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” And it seems that is where we are today. The exertions of academia, media, Hollywood, and the courts have accomplished a remarkable feat: incredibly, they have transformed our nation in twenty-five years by their disingenuous, deceptive, and dishonest campaign. The permissive crowd has convinced most people to believe right is now wrong and wrong is now right. Decent living is now considered unnecessary and perversion is no longer repugnant, reprehensible, and repulsive, but is thought (by non-thinkers) to be courageous, commendable, and even cultured!

It seems we have come a long way, baby, in recent few years; but we’ve gone in the wrong direction. Stalwart Americans are standing athwart the gasping, heaving body of American culture saying, “You are wrong. Perversion is immoral and it will destroy those who practice it and it will destroy this nation.” Our lives should be directed by good judgment, common sense, and God’s commandments–motivated by love for people and truth.

Homosexuality has always been considered an unspeakable crime against nature and against a holy God! It still is and the opposition refuses to discuss, dialogue, or debate the issue. Instead, they resort to accusations of hate, homophobia, and bigotry. Of course, that is easier than answering our objections. It is hatful, as well as unkind, to permit people to believe a lie even to make them feel good.

Some would argue that since homosexuality is acceptable, then it was perfectly legitimate for Pence to officiate at the ceremony. Others will argue that while perversion is wrong, Pence was only doing his job; however, swearing in people is not part of the job description of Vice President. And even if so, he could have refused to do it and accepted the repercussions even to the point of being forced to resign. That is what principled politicians (of both parties) always did in the past but it has not been seen much in recent years.

I like Mike Pence as a person and a politician; however, he failed to live up to his own adage: “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.” Does any knowledgeable person believe famous Christians of the past would have endorsed an outspoken homosexual? Can anyone believe John the Baptist would even suggest any kind of endorsement to a homosexual? I remind you that John preached against the King’s adultery with his (the king’s) brother’s wife even though it cost John his head. Where truth is involved, principled people don’t count the cost.

I am told that this is a losing battle. The victory has already been won by the prissy, permissive progressives; however, the battle may be over but not the war. Maybe Pence’s grandchildren will ask him at his 85th birthday party, “Grandpa what did you do to help stem the tide of sexual wickedness and strengthen American families during your life?” He will think of his three terms as Congressman, one term as governor of Indiana, two terms as vice president, and two terms as President (hopefully) and will have to say that he backed off his strong biblical position for political reasons.

Many Evangelicals have raised the white flag in the homosexual battle as they refuse to stand on biblical truth and use reason to commit treason against Christ. The cowards, compromisers, and charlatans speak of “love” while they strangle unpleasant truth. And even if we in opposition were to be filled with hate, I would rather have truth in hate than error in love.

Does Vice President Pence still love truth or has he, like so many others, raised the white flag of surrender to the vicious, vile, and violent bullies in the LGBT crowd?

Pence and all of us can learn to stand firmly from the success and failure of Asa, an ancient king of Judah who removed all the idols his father had made and introduced to the nation. He also “took away the sodomites out of the land” at that time. Moreover, he even removed his mother from being queen “because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol.” Wow, what a man; however, even the courageous and committed Asa did not remove the high places from the land.

God had commanded the Jews to worship in the Temple at Jerusalem but some Jews built high places that were dedicated wholly to Jehovah—while other high places were dedicated to pagan gods. Jews were to stay away from all the “high places.” Asa should have removed all of them but he did not. In that, he failed.

Asa shows that good men can make bad decisions and all men are flawed. Mike Pence is a good man who did not “remove the high places” from the land. Like Asa, Pence will be remembered as a good man who influenced many people for good yet God will say, “Mike, I have one thing against you.”

Pence was wrong to officiate at the swearing in ceremony. He took a stand like a crippled chicken, but he is our chicken. Let’s all learn from it.

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

In a normal day, I do research all day; then at night, I do what I call “my non-essential reading.” I spend far more time in my library than any other room. I always have a stack of books beside our bed and read three or four hours nightly. Last week I finished a biography about Patrick of Ireland and just finished a second one dealing with Patrick. At the same time I finished New Testament Fragments amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am about half way through the massive biography–Napoleon by Andrew Roberts.

While reading those books, I managed to read a book given to me by my youngest daughter that all three of her children really liked. It was the first in a series of seven books, The Sword, the Ring, and the Parchment, written by Ed Dunlop. Ed lives in my town of Ringgold, Georgia yet we had never met. We both work out of that city traveling the nation and the world with our separate messages. His work is mainly to youth and it is a very appealing and worthy ministry.

Recently, our county library featured county authors at an all-day book signing and I met Ed at that event. I told him my Indianapolis grandchildren loved his books. We exchanged books as authors often do at such events. I had just started reading his first book in the series. I have now read his first two books in a couple of weeks during my “non-essential” reading time. I, not liking fiction or fantasy, found them to be fantastic!

Ed’s books are geared toward children but also interest adults. His series is The Terrestria Chronicles, a series of seven books that inculcate biblical principles in the readers using allegory as the vehicle.

My books are all controversial dealing with Islam, politics, history, evolution, Christian Apologetics, etc., although I have written three joke books to lighten up a little. I have always considered fiction a waste of my time or at least not a wise use of it. I was wrong at least as it relates to Ed’s books.

I believe the Terrestria books are more exciting, more readable, and more worthwhile than anything C. S. Lewis or J. R. R. Tolkien wrote for kids! That is not hyperbolic; it is my honest opinion. Up front, while those men were great writers, I did not like their stories, their lifestyle, or their Catholicism. I never liked talking animals except as cartoons, but never as real life. Animals don’t talk. They are not “close” to humans since they cannot smile, reason, plan, weep, appreciate, etc. I don’t like wizards, witches, halfings (hobbits), magic, etc.; but I really like Dunlop’s books because they are exciting, teach eternal truths–that children are missing even in most Christian homes, and are well-written.

In reading his first two books, I did not find one typo in them! That shows the author is concerned with quality. And I just discovered a typo in the best seller Napoleon biography! That is important to me because it shows character by looking at small things. I have written 17 books and edited more than 125 so misteakes jump off the page yet I did not even see won in Dunlap’s books!

Dunlop’s books are true to Scripture and very exciting. I was amazed when I realized one evening that I was enjoying what I was reading! I always considered fiction to be a waste of time because I find a history of Rome, or Greece, or England, or America far more exciting and a better use of my time than any fiction.

In this series, Terrestria is the realm of the good King Emmanuel, where knights and their ladies live in castles, and where dragons still roam occasionally. Yet the land is at war. Wicked Argamor wants to take the throne from Emmanuel and he has loyal followers placed strategically throughout the kingdom. Who will win the battle for Terrestria, and what part will Prince Josiah play in the constant struggle? Josiah’s struggle as a prince of Terrestria takes him into all kinds of challenging, combative, and contemplative events.

Josiah is constantly learning to be a more noble, dedicated, and profitable follower of King Emmanuel. The author with great subtlety teaches the most desirable traits to the readers in an exciting way.

As I read the first two books in the series, I kept thinking, “The author simply cannot continue with such high quality work and consistency.” But he did. Any child (or adult) will be challenged to become a person who is honest in all his or her dealings, genuine in all relationships, and gracious to all people; also, a person who will accept people as they are whatever their status, appreciate kindness from others, have gratitude for what one has received, excel in all endeavors, be steadfast for one’s beliefs, eschew all evil, exude courage in midst of danger, and not be deceived by overconfidence. The books teach that everyone should grow in respect for those in authority and for the elderly and generally be gracious, good, even godly individuals.

Every home school parent and Christian school administrator should look at this series. As an educator, I would teach these books in Kindergarten, third, fifth, and seventh grades. If I had small children, I would start reading the books to three-year-olds and expect older children to read them once a year. Obviously, I am excited about Dunlop’s books.

The series carries out II Peter 1:5-8 command: “And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

How can radical haters of Christ deny that our nation and world would be infinitely better if those principles were common in today’s youth?

I have never been motivated in such a way before but these books fill such a void in the lives of most people, I am compelled to recommend them without reservation. Of course, I need to add that I have no arrangement of any kind with the author or publisher.

The books are available at talesofcastles.com. The books retail for $9.99 but they sell for 7.49 each on his website. The set of seven titles sells for $46.99. The spiral-bound study guide is $5.99 and covers all seven of The Terrestria Chronicles.

I will not profit in any way from the sale of these books or his other series; but I will guarantee that you and your children will profit.

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

According to the New Testament, the church was started by Christ and nourished by Peter, Paul, John, James, and others. During those early days, the church was known as “the church in Jerusalem” or the “Jerusalem church.” Later, churches were established in homes in Corinth, Antioch, and Rome. Being human (and fallible), Christian leaders disagreed (wrongly) with some of the Apostolic teachings and formed churches that reflected their interpretation. Some were minor and some were major departures from the Scripture. They then wrote false “gospels” to support their erroneous departure from the truth. The many denominations came into existence because of such departures from the truth.

The first Christians were very familiar with the synagogues so it was expected that the first Christian services would resemble the synagogue: public reading of Scripture, chanting the Psalms and responsive “Amens.” Such was the norm in ancient church services. Church historian Kenneth Latourette reveals, “Not until the fourth century do we have more than partial glimpses of the Christian liturgy.” So, those who gush over the “solemn” and “dignified” liturgical services in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglian, etc., churches have no support in Scripture or early history. The ancient church services were very simple.

The opulent distinctive dress of the clergy was unknown to the early Christians; even the clerical collar is not supported by Scripture. However, as usual, modern preachers, especially megachurch pastors and their wannabes have swung to the other extreme wearing faded jeans, polo shirts, and often expensive earrings and tasteless “Jesus Saves” tattoos.

The strict division of clergy and laity was unknown for a hundred years of the church’s existence. Church leadership came from the membership. Moreover, Paul the Apostle clearly commanded us in I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 to remember that we are all believers in Christ and we must show humility as we exercise our spiritual gifts in His service. You never see archbishops, cardinals, monsignors, abbots, metropolitans; or popes in the Bible or in the early churches. You only read about pastor/elder/bishops and deacons. Again, simplicity.

It was only natural for pastors in the Empire to look to more established church leaders for help so the concept of appreciation, admiration, and authority of the church in Rome became the norm. And many of the small churches were started by the Roman Church so of course, there was an affinity to Rome. With the passing of time, the influence of the Roman pastor changed from an acquaintance, to an authority, to an authoritarian, and in the 400s, he expected the other independent pastors to look to him as the religious boss. That didn’t go well with others since all pastors were expected to be equal and independent. At that time, the Roman Catholic Church did not exist since the Christian world looked for leadership in five places: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome.

Historian Edward Gibbon agreed: “The primitive bishops [of Rome] were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honorable servants of a free people.” He forcefully reports that the early churches of the Roman Empire “were united only by the ties of faith and charity.” No pope there.

Even as late as the 400s, there was no recognized universal church authority as historian Will Durant wrote, “The patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria claimed equal authority with the Roman see.” No pope there, only five wannabe popes!

The idea that Peter and/or Paul founded the church in Rome is totally false. In a footnote in the classic, (and very first) Church History by Bishop Eusebius (died 339), we read, “Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman Church in the strict sense for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.”

As for Peter dying in Rome, that is not mentioned by anyone before Origen who died in 254. That is hardly a contemporaneous validation.

Emperor Constantine moved the center of the Empire to Byzantium (later named Constantinople, now Istanbul) in 330 and the Patriarch of Constantinople later claimed control over the whole church including what was left of the western part of the Empire centered in Rome. That alarmed, angered, and agitated the Bishop of Rome since he liked his usurped authority that was slowly developing and saw it threatened by the Patriarch in Constantinople. When Rome fell, it produced major problems for everyone and left a vacuum of leadership.

Moving the center of the Empire to the East was no doubt one of the causes of Rome’s fall. It was the beginning of a geographical, cultural, and political split between the East that was centered in Constantinople and the West that was centered in Rome. Everything started to sour and did so for hundreds of years. Still a little sour today.

Gibbon gives 476 as the year Rome Empire ceased to exist. That was when the Germanic king Odoacer deposed the last Roman Emperor to rule the western portion of the Roman Empire. During the resulting chaos, the Bishop of Rome stepped in to take more control of secular as well as religious matters.

Eventually, but gradually, the Roman Catholic Church became a reality when Gregory the Great (590-604) became the first man to wield the authority similar to modern Popes–yet he opposed the concept! But popery became a reality late in the sixth century!

Relations between Rome and Constantinople continued to simmer and erupted when the Patriarch of Alexandria broke away from Rome at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and was soon joined by the Armenians, and later by a dissenting group from Antioch. By the 800s, most of the liturgical churches identified with Rome in the west or Constantinople in the east. They basically split over the issue of papal authority; the eastern churches thought the Pope assumed the top honcho position claiming authority he did not rightly possess. But the other mini popes refused to recognize that, so “Christendom” was embarrassed when the two leaders excommunicated each other! Now there was a definite split between Rome and Constantinople, and the independent churches continued to proliferate.

In 1054, the split became permanent and the eastern churches were known as Eastern Orthodox Churches (official name, Orthodox Catholic Church). Now Christianity was divided into Roman Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and independent churches, with the large number of formal, liturgical churches split between Rome and Constantinople. The independent churches continued to multiply and gain religious and political influence.

All three groups claim to be successors of the original Christians. In my opinion, the Eastern Orthodox group is closer to original Christianity than the Roman Church; however, their liturgy, vestments, holy days, unswerving adherence to the church councils, adoration of icons, use of terms such as Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan, etc., are absent from the Bible. Also, like the Roman Church, the Orthodox group teaches apostolic succession.

With the passing of time, the Roman Church became incredibly corrupt–in theology and personal living. Enter the Reformers beginning with Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale, Luther, Knox, Calvin, Puritans, and Pilgrims, among others. While the Reformers were highly dedicated and courageous men who came “out from among them,” they did not come out far enough! After leaving a corrupt system, they formed churches which became state churches and all of them practiced infant “baptism.”

In a free nation, people can choose to believe what they want–even error, and I do not agree with Augustine and his followers who believed people should be forced to believe the “truth.” A truly free person can believe error if he or she chooses.

Of course, there is a big price to pay for error and part of that price is so many denominations.

I am not looking for a church of opulence but obedience; not money but a message; not grandeur but grace; not popularity but passion. I demand sincerity, strength, simplicity, and scriptural truth–just like the ancient churches.

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.

Over the years, I have spent much time reading the papers, sermons, and books by King. I assume all informed people know that it has been confirmed by King’s people in Atlanta that he was a prolific plagiarizer who did not even try to hide his literary thievery.

However, my concern here is not with his plagiarism or his philandering but with his preaching. It is clear that King preached heresy as his seminary papers and his books reveal. Today, my main target is the papers he wrote at Crozer Seminary.

Regarding the virgin birth King wrote, “It seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.” Of course, it is improbable but improbable does not mean impossible, especially with God! King continued: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker….To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth.”

Well, we could go back to Isaiah 7:14 where Isaiah promised, “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and [you] shall call his name Immanuel.” Yes, the translation could be “maid, damsel, or virgin” but Matthew 1:23 settled the matter when Matthew wrote, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child…and they shall call his name Immanuel…” The clear truth in Matthew confirms the use of virgin in Isaiah! So that settles that!

However, not for King. He makes much of Mark’s Gospel not dealing with the virgin birth declaring, “To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth.” However, a seminarian surely understands that the argument from silence is a very weak argument. No one says that all four gospels deal with the very same incidents or deals with them from the same perspective. In fact, a different perspective is one reason God gave us four Gospels. Furthermore, no Gospel is more “authentic” than another.

King also takes a scalpel and seeks to excise the core doctrine of His resurrection from the Bible and from history: “From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.” No, it is King who is found wanting after being weighted in the balances. Of course, King was aware that all four Gospels clearly teach the physical resurrection of Christ as do some of the epistles, but that is not good enough for King: the resurrection of our Savior is “found wanting.”

In a paper titled “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically” King wrote: “The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden [sic] of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule [sic] by many.” We Fundamentalists may experience ridicule but at least we can spell it.

He closes his paper with: “Others [sic] doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant [sic] in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose [sic] to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.” He is saying, “You are a dummy if you believe the Bible to be the very Word of God.”

As to the atonement of Christ, King wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He explained that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is “bizarre.” He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral….In the next place, if Christ by his life and death paid the full penalty of sin, there is no valid ground for repentance or moral obedience as a condition of forgiveness. The debt is paid; the penalty is exacted, and there is, consequently, nothing to forgive.”

Therefore, according to King, Christ did not triumph over death, Hell, and the grave and the fact that Christ took our sin and guilt upon Himself on the cross is “bizarre” and immoral.

As to the Second Coming of Christ, Day of Judgment, and resurrection of the body King wrote that these teachings taken literally “are quite absurd….It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ.”

Throughout his writings, King scorns Bible-believing Christians and praises unbelieving liberals, but that is not surprising since he did that all his life. It speaks volumes that he built arguments against the truths of scriptures rather than supporting them. He did not believe the Bible.

So, on Jan. 15, I will not celebrate King’s birthday. I will celebrate the usual way: my wife and some friends will eat frog legs, Peking duck, and steak at our favorite Chinese Restaurant. As always, it will be a great evening.

After all, I get to eat free since it is my birthday.

Boys’ eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! is available at amazon.com for $3.99.

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.

No doubt, there are some people who put their trust in a Fundamentalist leader only to be horribly disappointed and possibly emotionally abused but such people need to recognize that all groups have self-serving extremists which the group cannot control. They should not blame the movement or God, but the person. Then deal with those specific issues and move on in their Christian life. It does no good and much harm to “pick at the scab” and blame a whole group for the failure of a few nuts.

All nuts are not on trees or in secular universities. Some are in pulpits, even Baptist pulpits!

Make no mistake: Fundamentalists are the original Christians! That fact is confessed by one of the leading religious scholars to serve in mainline Christianity. Dr. Kirsopp Lake was a professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University who affirmed that fundamentalism is original Christianity! This expert of church history wrote, “It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the…survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.” Lake added, “The Fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority.” He added that the Bible is on the side of Fundamentalists! (Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow, 1925, pp. 61, 62.)

In 1947, a critic of Fundamentalists, Harold J. Ockenga, said that “fundamentalism most nearly approximates theological truth” despite all that he thought was wrong with it. He even declared in a sermon in December of 1957, “I wish to be always classified as a Fundamentalist.”

Charles Colson, a devoted and brilliant evangelical, equated Fundamentalism with orthodox Christianity. “Everyone who believes in the orthodox truths about Jesus Christ—in short, every Christian—is a fundamentalist.” All right, why doesn’t every professing Christian belong to a Bible-preaching church?

The Apostles’ Creed was first mentioned in the 300s and has always been used by many mainline churches who, for the most part, do not believe it! It was believed, in the 4th century, that the creed was composed by the Apostles themselves. All Bible believers would accept the entire creed.

It is obvious to any honest person that Fundamentalists are original Christians since their doctrine is the same as first century Christians. Plus, the simplicity of their services as opposed to the formal liturgy in many churches is further support for its originality. The Roman Catholic Church, Episcopalians, the Greek Orthodox Church, and most of the mainline American churches do not believe in the original doctrines of the New Testament or they have added doctrines and practices that are not found in Scripture.

Another indication that Fundamentalists are original Christians is separation, both personal and ecclesiastical. Personal separation from sin is called, “godliness,” or “holiness,” and no one suggests that only Fundamentalists believe and practice that. However, the preaching of godly living today is as scarce as albino dinosaurs in Kentucky. Too much preaching nowadays pats the back and tickles the ear, but does not get under the skin. There is no conviction and therefore no conversion. I am thinking not only of the ministry of reproof and rebuke but also of the message of inspiration, of encouragement, and of comfort. The average church member leaves church at noon with his depths unstirred, his heart untouched, and his conscience unpricked. Such pastors are therefore unbiblical, unnecessary, and should be unemployed.

Of all religious groups, Evangelicals come closest to Fundamentalists (since that is the Evangelicals’ roots) but many refuse to condemn filthy television, movies, alcohol, other drugs, etc., and refuse to promote frequent church attendance, tithing, and other distinctives. Many Evangelicals work hard at convincing everyone they are not Fundamentalists.

Methinks they protest too much.

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

In November of 2014, they hosted a Muslim prayer and preaching service that a Tennessee lady interrupted by shouting, “Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. We have built enough of your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques? …America was founded on Christian principles…Leave our church alone!” She was ejected and scorned while the Christ-hating Muslims were entertained and succored! This may be an example of God using a woman because no man was willing to be used to deliver the message.

The National Cathedral in D.C. is a magnificent gothic building but it is full of dead men’s bones. Christ’s comparable term was “whited (whitewashed) sepulcher.” The official name of the church is Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington, but I’m afraid Peter and Paul would not be welcome in their pulpit.

The Dean is the Very Rev. Gary R. Hall who came to the church in 2012. Hall’s father was Henry R. “Huntz” Hall, an actor who played one of the looney, tough-talking street urchins in the Bowery Boys movie series. I think his dad had more sense than the Rev. Hall.

Hall is a religious rebel without a cause other than the cause of apostasy. He said, “No sex before marriage is not realistic.” He did not try to prove that fornication was Biblical. He has even opened the cathedral for homosexual nuptials! He really jumped into a cauldron of confusion when he opined, “It is not only just OK to be gay, straight, bisexual, or transgendered. It is good to be that way, because that is the way God has made you.” Hall even invited a “transgendered priest” to preach in his pulpit recently. Wonder if he would invite me to preach for him!

However, every sane, honest person knows that God never made a homosexual. He created man and woman and they were to marry, have children, and live together until death.

Hall identifies himself as a “non-theistic Christian,” but that is a silly statement, not scholarly, and certainly not Scriptural. Hall continues to expose his heresy and rejection of Bible truth by saying, “Jesus didn’t try to convert. He just had people at his table.” I should think the head of America’s major Episcopal cathedral would know that Christ said, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Moreover, Christ told Nicodemus that he “must be born again” in order to enter Heaven.

Hall even identified himself with the teaching of New Atheist Richard Dawkins when he told him, “I don’t believe in the God you don’t believe in either.” So, the “Nation’s cathedral” has a non-Christian as its leader! Since he doesn’t believe the Bible he should do the principled thing and resign rather than accept an outrageous salary and perks from a “Christian” ministry.

So why haven’t traditional Christians at the National Cathedral, if there are any, thrown Hall into the street on his derrière? While Episcopal churches do not have congregational rule as did early New Testament churches, the members could refuse, reject, and remove him if they threw a religious fit. However, the problem is that most professing Christians don’t know what they believe or don’t have any convictions that demand action. Every sincere Christian at that church should leave immediately and seek a church where Christ is honored and the Bible is preached. When enough people leave, the church could be turned into a bowling alley, fast food joint, or maybe a Beer-Burger-Bible center now popular with shallow youth.

Hall has distanced himself from Peter, Paul, and all the other New Testament authors. Peter spoke of preachers such as Hall in II Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Hall and other mainline preachers are deceptive false prophets wearing sheep skins to hide their wolf features underneath. They are nests of vipers far more dangerous than rattlesnakes on the floor of a nursery. At least rattlesnakes, by nature, warn potential victims of danger. False prophets do not.

The Washington National Cathedral website declares it is called “to serve as the spiritual home for the nation. The Cathedral is a national treasure and an architectural feat, a place of stunning beauty built to inspire.” No one asked me to vote on its being “the spiritual home for the nation.” It might be rude or even crude for me to remind my readers that the Episcopal Church was the major opponent of our War for Independence. More than half of their Colonial ministers left their pulpits in disagreement with our demand for a break with England.

During our fight for independence from King George III, all Episcopal ministers had taken vows of loyalty to the King of England and the royal family. And the king was head of the church, another unscriptural entanglement. So, during that time over half the Anglican priests in America gave up their ministries rather than go against their promise to serve the king, while some even supported the British forces. Other ministers revised the Book of Common Prayer to eliminate all references to the king.

While the Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and even some Quakers were highly dedicated supporters of the War for Independence, the Episcopal leaders were the most vocal opponents of our cause. Jonathan Odell was the Episcopal rector at Burlington, New Jersey and became a confidant of traitor Benedict Arnold and scourged the Patriots with a sharp, satirical pen. His poorly rhymed attack on Presbyterian preacher John Witherspoon (who signed the Declaration of Independence) contains the clumsy couplet: “Whilst to myself I’ve humm’d in dismal tune, I’d rather be a dog than Witherspoon.” Odell accused his fellow Anglican ministers, who supported the American cause, of apostasy.

Witherspoon was the most important “political parson” of the Revolutionary period. As president of Princeton, Witherspoon was accused of turning the institution into a “seminary of sedition.” A strong opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, he spent some time in a Scottish prison as a young preacher. One of my heroes.

Bishop Jonathan Mayhew was an eloquent proponent of the idea that civil and religious liberty was ordained by God and he considered the Church of England as a dangerous enemy of that personal freedom. The top of the bishop’s staff with a snake emerging from it represented his view of the Anglican hierarchy. Mayhew was a “snake killer” who had theological problems but he was a dedicated patriot.

Hall should become a genuine believer and take some lessons from early American preachers and have a snake-killing service at the National Cathedral or he could ask me to do it for him. I would be honored.

Poor Rev. Hall. He has no knowledge that he has no knowledge and someone who is unaware that he is unaware is pathetic.

Boys’ new book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! will be released on Wednesday by Barbwire Books.

Stuart Hamblen was a skirt chasing, boozing, fighting, cowboy radio star in Los Angeles. He heard of the Billy Graham stir around L.A. and wanted him on his show. He attended the tent meeting one night and he thought Graham called him a fake during his message! Hamblen stomped out and two nights later he appeared at Graham’s hotel door at 4:00 a.m. drunk as a skunk. He wanted Graham to pray for him. About 5:00 p.m. he trusted Christ. His life was changed immediately. He stopped his wild, hedonist living and soon the Hollywood crowd began to shun him. He was fired from his popular radio show because he refused to accept a beer commercial. Wow, a man of principle!

John, one of his old Hollywood drinking buddies, asked him one day if “getting religion” was worth all the repercussions and Stuart told him it was. John said, “But Stuart you sure liked your booze, don’t you miss it?” He told him that he did not miss it and John said, “I don’t understand how you could give it up so easily.” Stuart replied, “It’s no secret what God can do.” His friend replied, “That’s a catchy phrase. You should write a song about it.” He did. Stu went home sat down at the piano and finished the song in 17 minutes. His new gospel song, “It is no secret what God can do” was the first song to cross over from Gospel to country to pop ballad reaching number one on all three charts!

His drinking buddy was John Wayne with whom he appeared in some of his ten movies where he had minor roles.

Hamblen wrote other Christian songs and “This Old House” written for his friend Rosemary Clooney was a big hit. It went to number two on the country field chart and remained there for 30 weeks! It was also named the “Song of the Year.” Most people totally missed the message.

When publisher William Randolph Hearst heard about some of the Hollywood crowd trusting Christ and getting involved, he sent a telegram to every editor in his newspaper syndicate: “Puff Graham.” Thus, began a wild ride for a lifetime of a preacher and the media, a media that never writes a critical word about him.

Hearst’s sons told Graham that their father attended the tent revival in disguise, in a wheelchair accompanied by his mistress, actress Marion Davies. Because of Hearst’s promotion of the meeting, it was extended five weeks. Hearst had promoted Evangelist Billy Sunday and Mary Baker Patterson Eddy in earlier years!

Other stars impacted by Graham’s meeting included the beautiful, brassy, buxom Jane Russell, Dennis Morgan, Virginia Mayo, Porter Hall, Connie Haines, Michael O’Shea, Roy Rogers, and Dale Evans.

Another “star” walked the sawdust trail: Jim Vaus, Jr., infamous wiretapper for the number one mobster in L.A., Mickey Cohen! Cohen was uneducated but coy, violent, and street smart. Wow, things were getting interesting in the old tent. Jim was an electronic genius and worked surreptitiously (and illegally) for the L.A. Police procuring evidence to convict prostitutes and crooks; later spying on Mickey Cohen. Jim discovered there was more money working for Cohen than the cops so he decided to go full time with crime.

Cohen collected celebrities like others collect baseball cards. Bob Mitchem, Sammy Davis, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin and many other stars kissed his ring. Among his girlfriends were Candy Barr, Tempest Storm, and Beverly Hills. I think those were pseudonyms.

Cohen was a street thug with a second grade education from New York. He was in a reform school at age ten and ran from home at 15. At nine he was delivering illegal booze made by his brothers in a Brooklyn drug store. He worked the rackets in Cleveland and Chicago (with Al Capone, his idol) ending up working for Bugsy Siegel in Las Vegas. Siegel had been the crime boss in L.A. but moved to Vegas to build and operate the Flamingo Hotel, anticipating the gambling tsunami that was sweeping the nation. Siegel was skimming money from the New York bosses and mismanaging the Flamingo so the mob assassinated him at his girlfriend’s apartment.

After Siegel’s murder in 1947, Cohen consolidated his hold on crime in L.A. Somehow he discovered that Vaus had bugged his house for the L.A. police but he didn’t kill him; he hired him to spy on the cops!

But Jim had been converted, not simply signing a decision card; and Graham hired him and asked him to set up a meeting with Cohen. They met at Mickey’s Brentwood home for five hours. There is no doubt that each man “played” the other. Graham knew the results if he won the number one L.A. mobster to Christ and Cohen liked being identified with this newly famous preacher. Both men revealed their relationship to the public, Cohen even stated that he and Graham were going to vacation together at a Tucson dude ranch.

It didn’t hurt Cohen’s reputation to be identified with Graham since Cohen was about to go to prison for five years for income tax evasion. Only God knows how serious Cohen was considering becoming a Christian but he was reluctant to reject his Jewish roots to become a Southern Baptist! That’s a massive leap–which he should have made in my opinion.

Graham refused to let go of the relationship even stating, “Mickey Cohen is not as bad as America thinks,” and added “I am praying that after he pays his debt to society he will give his heart and life to Christ. He has the makings of one of the greatest gospel preachers of all time, and I mean that.” (Billy said about the same about Bill Clinton.) Informed people knew that Cohen was a loveable killer, thief, and general mobster who had been the object of eleven assassination attempts by other mobsters. Cohen told Mike Wallace on ABC that he had never killed anyone who didn’t deserve killing!

Some highly visible Christians pressed Cohen to trust Christ and change his hedonistic lifestyle and he told them “You never told me I had to give up my career. You never told me that I had to give up my friends. There are Christian movie stars, Christian athletes, Christian businessmen. So what’s the matter with being a Christian gangster? If I have to give up all that—if that’s Christianity—count me out.”

Mickey Cohen was always out. He went to jail again for income tax evasion, got out in 1972, and died of stomach cancer in 1976. He died leaving an estate of $3,000 and a tax bill of about $500, 000. I don’t know what happened to Candy Barr.

However, Stuart Hamblen totally changed after his conversion to Christ as did Jim Vaus. Jim went on to preach until his death in 1997. No one questions Jim’s conversion because he was a changed man. Just before his conversion he had stolen $15,000 of electronic equipment and he sold his home and car to make restitution. “Restitution” a strange word not heard much anymore. Nor practiced.

It is interesting that Graham never had another meeting like the L.A. tent meeting. No doubt many people trusted Christ over his lifetime but Graham changed after the L.A. meeting. He rejected Christian fundamentalism and became a middle of the roader, working with anyone who could produce a crowd. Graham sincerely chose to do wrong that good might result.

Casting his lot with liberal, unbelieving clergy was the biggest mistake Billy Graham ever made.

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!”

A recent Gordon graduate stated “The current policy creates a sense of fear for LGBTQ students and is psychologically harmful to those in the community” and added “Campus should be a safe place for all students.” Of course, all students should be physically safe on all campuses but the question that demands an answer is, “Why are practicing homosexuals permitted to be students in a Christian college?” Moreover, even if homosexuals are permitted, is it prima facie evidence that a prohibition against immorality (fornication or perversion) results in an unsafe atmosphere?

Gordon officials want to quell any rumors and concern about the school’s status since that would have devastating effects on enrollment and fundraising. If Gordon College is now under the regulators’ gun it could lose its organizational stamp of approval. Gordon must fix whatever needs fixing before September. It is a fact that the accrediting agency does not like Gordon (or any college) prohibiting “homosexual practice” and the banning of “sexual relations outside of marriage.” A committee, during an 18-month “period of discernment” has been looking for a way to fix the problem. A working group includes students (one is homosexual), faculty, staff, administrators, and trustees who will read books and meet with experts to fix the problem.

Just a minute. It won’t take 18 months since the “period of discernment” can be accomplished in 18 seconds. I’m a very simple person so I’m simplistic at times. A question must be asked: Are homosexuality and fornication forbidden by the Bible? Any third-rate Bible scholar would admit that fact, although maybe without enthusiasm. So, another question: Is it permissible for a Christian institution to make flagrant decisions in disobedience to His Word? Another question: Why does it take 18 months or 18 minutes? Gordon’s answer to the accrediting agency must be “Go pound sand.” Now, that is not an academic reply but it is an audacious, admirable, and accurate reply.

Can any Christian college president and Board of Trustees permit an accrediting agency or the Federal Government to interfere, supervise, and mandate rules for them? Of course, the answer should be “no,” however, that is a lost cause. The fact is, those very school officials capitulated many years ago when they decided they needed the secular stamp of approval upon their schools. It is called accreditation. Almost all Christian colleges have sought and received government approval through regional accreditation.

Christian educators know that parents are uninformed and have been brainwashed into believing that accreditation and qualification are synonymous. So Christian educators drank the grape Kool-Aid many years ago and some of them said to me as they wiped their quivering lips, “We will go along with accreditation as long as they don’t tell us how to run our school, what to teach, and what textbooks to use.” Of course, that is exactly what happened. Those same people did respond to the iron fist by wringing their hands, whining, and whimpering but they adjusted to the surrender of their basic educational and scriptural principles. They sold out to get handouts from government such as grants, loans, and other benefits, enabling students to receive government funds.

Today, Christian college registrars cannot even inform the tuition-paying parents the status of their children‘s education unless the student signs a consent form! Parents are fools to pay tuition without that signed consent form. Required chapel attendance has been forsaken and, generally, school officials are walking through a minefield of government and accrediting association regulations.

Some of us in Christian education said many years ago that what government (at any level) funds, it runs; and if you take the government’s nickel, you will get their noose. Christian educators took the chance and now operate with a noose, loose in some cases, but a noose around their necks while standing on a weak, wobbly, wormy, and worthless scaffold called accreditation.

Now comes the next step when the Federal bureaucracy, not just the state or an accreditation agency, can set the guidelines for any school that awards a degree, diploma or certificate. Federal educational thugs can determine what courses must be taught for each degree, what constitutes a credit hour, how many hours a professor may teach, and what books will be used. And on and on and on.

Can any Christian college president justify permitting any agency to interfere in the discipline of students (sounds quaint, doesn’t it) and to set standards for those students? How about a college’s stand on abortion, homosexuality, fornication (very quaint), and other “sins”? Therefore, those colleges that decide not to abide by new regulations (that may not be too intrusive at the beginning) can expect to lose tax exemption, all student loans, grants, and any benefit from state and Federal Government.

School officials will have to jump through government hoops in order to satisfy the federal bureaucrats and even fools know that federal bureaucrats are never satisfied.

All presidents of Christian colleges had better practice jumping because there are numerous hoops they must jump through to satisfy state, federal, and regional accrediting dictates. And note that dictates is not far from dictators.

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 resent historians and media who refuse to deal with truth whether it is about Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama. Or, about preachers whether it be Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bennie Hinn–or King. It is astounding that many conservatives refuse to acknowledge the historical record but emphasize only a small but commendable portion of a hero’s life. Therefore, they don’t feel cowardly in their very selective stand.

For the record, Johnson was a thief, liar, and foul-mouthed fornicator. The best thing he did for America was not run for reelection. That is not to say that he did not accidently accomplish some good during his stint in office. Moreover, it is a fact that Blacks were often intimidated and refused voting rights in some southern states and it is good that that has been corrected. However, one should not then leap to the conclusion that it is discrimination to demand that everyone prove citizenship when voting. That is not discrimination but common sense. Nor is it wrong to reject any ploy that permits a person to vote multiple times in various districts or makes it easy to commit voter fraud. In our desire to do good, we must not do stupid.

King was a social worker who used the ministry to accomplish his mission and let me be clear that there were many wrongs that needed to be righted. Most of the young people who faced the white bullies with dogs and clubs were heroes. Some of them even lost their lives to white thugs. King was an opportunist who accomplished some good. However, because King was black and was killed by a white racist who should have been executed within a few months of his crime, most media and academia refuse to research, recognize, and report the truth about King. I do so because I don’t worship anyone and try to hold everyone to the same standard.

Many reading this, including most conservatives, will be offended at the suggestion that King might not have been a Christian. But then a person is not a Christian because he professes to be or because he belongs to a “Christian” Church or because he is baptized. According to the Bible, one becomes a Christian when he or she exercises faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. King, according to his own words was not a believer!

We can know much about a person if we study what he has written, and I have spent many hours reading King. His seminary papers are very revealing as to what he believed and what his motives were. The King papers are courtesy of the King family and those papers prove that he was not only an unbeliever but far from being a scholar! Since no one else will do so, I will try to set the record straight.

I can live with my motives and I hope you can live with the truth. Some of this information is from my eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color available at amazon.com with documentation. Please note that I will not deal with King’s philandering, plagiarism, politics, or partying.

Today, my main interest is to look at the evidence for proof of King’s salvation, not whether he was an accomplished community organizer and admired civil rights leader.
King received his B.D. from Crozer Seminary then started to work on his Ph.D. at Boston University. All the following information is from that time period.

King’s seminary and university papers show his taking a scalpel to excise the core doctrine of Christ’s physical resurrection from the Bible and from history: “From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.” No, it is King who is found wanting after being weighed in the balances. Of course, King was aware that all four Gospels clearly teach the physical resurrection of Christ as do many of the epistles, but that is not good enough for King: the resurrection of our Savior is “found wanting.” Furthermore, there are scores of carefully documented books that support Christ’s physical resurrection. Any scholar would know that.

Regarding the virgin birth King wrote: “it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.” Of course, it is improbable but improbable does not mean impossible, especially with God! King further wrote: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker.” King was not objective and in my opinion not a deep thinker.

In a paper at Crozer titled “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus,” his professor rebuked him suggesting that it would be good if he proofread his papers before turning them in! He was given a B+ by his professor. In this paper he misspelled “Samaria,” “learned,” “agonizing,” “omniscient,” “omniscience,” “reliance,” “orbit,” “warmest,” “intimacy,” “inadequate,” and others. That was graduate work! I would have given him a D, if he rewrote the paper maybe a C.

King wrote, “They realized that if they wanted to get an objective standard of reference they would they would [sic] have to go beyond the pages of the old [sic] testament [sic] into the path that lead [sic] to that locked door.” King was favoring the position that the Old Testament is not a reliable historical record. King was like all unbelievers who jump at the opportunity to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Word of God and praise, promote, and protect paganism.

King concludes his paper dealing with archeology and the Old Testament: “If we accept the Old Testament as being ‘true’ we will find it full of errors, contradictions, and obvious impossibilities–as that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.” Surely he blushed to write about errors since his papers and books are riddled with errors or all kinds. When he purloined pages from other authors he also stole their mistakes!

In one of King’s papers at Crozer on the “Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East,” I discovered eight spelling, punctuation, and composition mistakes in nine consecutive lines! Maybe I will do another column on his astounding number of mistakes.
No, the “contradictions” were in King’s life, not in the Scripture and he clearly denied the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His resurrection, and the veracity of Scripture. By any objective standard King was not a Christian. Therefore, on January 15 I will be working as usual then have dinner with friends at our favorite Chinese restaurant. After all, because it is also my birthday, the dinner of steak, shrimp, and Peking duck is free.

You can honor King as a crusader if you please, but not as a legitimate Christian leader. A Christian he was not.

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!”