Of course, too many people of all races are killed every day but then too many people have rebelled against the laws that all sane people want enforced. The vast majority of the shootings of Blacks and Whites are justified because of those rebellious people coming in contact with those we pay to enforce our laws.

A New York Times editorial asked, “When will the killing stop?” and the answer is when Black youth start obeying police officers. But then they weren’t taught respect for authority in the home, mainly because of the absence of a male authority figure.

That’s not blaming the victim; it’s recognizing an unpleasant and unassailable truth.

It should be understood that it is not always necessary to shoot a suspect and when other means are available, lethal force should not be used. No doubt, many police departments need to do more training and be aware that they may have rogue cops among them. Also, it is a fact that police officers tend to be in areas known for criminal activity! So, if they are patrolling a black neighborhood because of so many robberies, then the cops will arrest more Blacks and have more potential clashes resulting in a tragic death of the cop or criminal.

Would the race-baiters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want the cops not to patrol predominately black parts of town? Decent and concerned Blacks often say, “They are selling drugs on my street corner” or “I can always smell marijuana in my building.” And everyone knows many streets in black and many white neighborhoods are not safe after dark. Now, since cops go where they are needed, is it any surprise that there are more confrontations in those areas?

Michelle Higgins is an Evangelical leader who has joined the race-baiting crowd. She is known as Marxist Michelle, a fanatical follower of and defender of the Black Lives Matter movement. Speaking at an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship sponsored meeting of 16,000 students, Higgins said, “If VonDerrit Myers (a black man shot and killed by a St. Louis police officer in October) was wearing an ankle bracelet at the time that he was killed, then he deserved to die.” She made the statement as if repeating what vicious, unconcerned Whites say about the incident as if that’s all the pertinent facts.

It is a fact that Myers shot first, and the officer at whom he fired returned fire and killed the teen. Lab results found Myers had gun powder deposits on his hand at the time of his death. He was also awaiting trial on earlier gun charges and wearing an ankle bracelet as a condition of his bond in that case.

Continuing her racist diatribe, Higgins said, “The blood of Michael Brown cries out from the ground.” No, there is a cry for honesty, common sense, and courage coming from citizens of all races who want protection from thugs. Also, a plea for parents, especially black parents to teach their sons to respect those people who daily defend their right to live and work. Youth must be taught to obey those in authority whether parents, police, or principal.

She opined that because of her activism, she and her father were once “pursued and targeted for eight months by white supremacists who had been ‘dead set” on killing them. It is interesting that no reporter asked her to elucidate. How were they “pursued” and “targeted”? If they were dead set on killing them, why did they not make any attempts? Yes, it is possible her statement is true, but it smells like a very dead fish.

Higgins charged that white Evangelicals are convinced that “African worship is weird.” Well, it is not only weird but pagan. I wonder if she has been to Africa and seen the paganism, shamanism, devil worship, etc. But I’m not supposed to write that especially since I’m as white as a ping pong ball.

She added, “God wants to relieve you of the burden of being in control.” Well, I didn’t know Evangelical Christians were in control. But if whites are to be relieved of control, who is to take charge? After all, someone has to be in control.

Michelle really showed her true colors when she added, “You need to make reparations for the guilt for the crimes of all white humanity.” Sorry, sweetheart, I have no “guilt for the crimes of white humanity.” None, zero, zilch, not a smidgen of guilt.

She took a swipe at President Trump charging: “If you don’t know your history, you’re going to end up repeating it with a crazy-‘a’ president who don’t know what he doing.” I think a “Christian” spokesperson should have the grace and good sense not to call a national leader “crazy” without substantial medical support for the diagnosis. (Moreover, a college and seminary graduate should know about subject verb agreement.)

She spent much time promoting BLM: “Black lives matter is not a mission of hate.” Well, that’s news to me. Their activities, slogans, signs, and chants indicate otherwise. She asserted that Blacks are “incarcerated and executed because of their skin color.” That is outrageous bilge and it is incredible that at least one informed, courageous student did not oppose her lies. But most students are non-thinking wimps.

Barbara Reynolds is a black author and pastor and former editor and columnist for USA Today. Fact is, Barbara and I wrote for that paper at the same time. I seldom agreed with her but we are on the same page today. Barbara wrote, “But at protests today, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate activists from the mob actors who burn and loot. The demonstrations are peppered with hate speech, profanity, and guys with sagging pants that show their underwear. The movement loses sympathy when it shouts down those who dare to utter ‘all lives matter.’”

Reynolds was right on target and she is to be respected for her candor.

During her speech at the InterVarsity gig, Higgins didn’t say anything about the Gospel but she did speak favorably of Communist Angela Davis! You remember Angie, don’t you? She was a professor who climbed into bed with the radical Black Panthers in the 1960s. She ran for U.S. vice president on the Communist Party ticket more than 30 years ago. And she once said, “The only path of liberation for black people is that which leads toward complete and radical overthrow of the capitalist class.” That sounds like insurrection and if so, it is illegal to advocate the overthrow of our government! She should be in prison but she escaped prison in 1970s when an all-white guilt-ridden (in my opinion) jury left her free to do her work.

The sordid even took place on August 7, 1970, when teenager Jonathan Peter Jackson tried to gain the freedom for his brother George and another prisoner by kidnapping a Superior Court judge from the Civic Center in San Rafael, California. The botched attempt ended with a shootout that left four men dead, including both the younger Jackson and Judge Haley! Two others were wounded. The nation’s attention was captivated for months during the manhunt and trial. Davis had been a professor at UCLA and had been dumped but got involved in this caper with the Jackson brothers and the Black Panthers. Davis was set free even though she owned the weapons used in the incident!

And such a radical Communist was praised by Higgins at a Christian event!

InterVarsity, feeling the heat if not seeing the light, issued a damage control statement saying, “InterVarsity does not endorse everything attributed to #BlackLivesMatter. For instance, we reject any call to attack or dehumanize police. But – using the language of Francis Schaeffer and Chuck Colson – we are co-belligerents with a movement with which we sometimes disagree because we believe it is important to affirm that God created our Black brothers and sisters.”

What a copout! No one questions that God created Blacks. God is not responsible for the disruption of black families, numerous bastard children, and lack of respect for authority especially by young, black males. Inter-Varsity has gone the way of hundreds of other parachurch groups—compromise, collusion, and corruption.

InterVarsity desperately tried to wrap themselves in the mantles of two popular Evangelical leaders, Francis Schaefer and Charles Colson. The religious group then reiterated their support for Black Lives Matter by calling them co-belligerents in the battle for doing God’s work. Can anyone imagine the Apostle Paul seeking to identify with the Gnostics in order to carry out God’s work on earth! After all, he could find something with which he agreed, if he looked long enough. We are not to give any support to unbiblical, unpatriotic, or unlawful groups. BLM qualifies on all three counts.

Leftist religious groups and individuals, consisting of the usual suspects, were surprised and delighted that InterVarsity had invited Higgins to speak. Biblically oriented people are horrified and many have struck InterVarsity from their list of those they financial support.

For sure, Jesus Christ was not preached, promoted, or presented and some people still wonder why thinking Conservatives don’t support Black Lives Matter!

Higgins and other spewers of hate and misinformation need to understand that there is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police!

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.

Because of their high view of Scripture (it is inspired, infallible, and inerrant as well as invaluable for godly living), they adhere to the fundamentals of the faith believing in Christ’s virgin birth, virtuous life, vicarious death, victorious resurrection, and visible return as well as the validity of miracles and the veracity of Scripture. Of course, at one time all orthodox Christians believed those doctrines!

So, who changed?

Furthermore, Fundamentalists insist on the independence of each local church refusing any religious hierarchy or authority over a local church. Therefore, they refuse to belong to any denomination. Each Fundamentalist congregation must be judged on its own merits.

There were exceptions to the anti-denomination position in the early 1900s when many Fundamentalists were in the Presbyterian U.S.A. and the Northern (later American) Baptist Convention. During that era when the Fundamentalist/Modernist battle was raging, many great preachers refused to recognize the theological corruption in their groups or, if admitted, they refused to leave their beloved denominations. Such a move would have had a major impact on their family, friends, finances, and future. Many others did leave and became what they should have always been—unaffiliated or independent Fundamentalists like the early churches.

Harvard Divinity School Professor (and Church Historian) Kirsopp Lake wrote, “that Fundamentalism is virtually synonymous with orthodox Christianity.” He added, “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.”

He went on: “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. The Bible and the corpius theologicum of the Church is [sic] on the Fundamentalist side.” (Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, (Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1925), pp 61-62.)

Fundamentalists usually eschew formalism, anthems, vestments, and repetition and usually prefer, even demand, simplicity in worship, doctrinally sound hymns, and serious Bible teaching and preaching. They meet in massive megachurches, smaller “churchy” buildings, storefronts, or even homes. They are also known for their independence, consequently some Fundamentalists will fuss with me for “speaking for them.” Of course, I speak for myself prompted by my knowledge of church history and current events.

People learn from examples so permit me to highlight a week in my recent experiences with Fundamentalists. Recently, my wife and I flew to Los Angeles at the invitation of a famous Fundamentalist, Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr., pastor of the Baptist Tabernacle of Los Angeles. Dr. Hymers has long been a critic of unbelief at his alma mater, the major west coast Southern Baptist Seminary—Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (now Gateway Seminary), Fuller Seminary, and other educational institutions. In Hollywood, he has also raised the flag of decency to which reasonable people could rally.

Like most Fundamentalists, Dr. Hymers and his church leaders realize they are there to serve, not to be served. The servant heart is shown throughout their ministry and especially in their desire to reach the world. The church has an extensive website that provides the sermons of the pastor and others in 38 languages (video and transcribed!). Missionary pastors around the world can get help in sermon preparation in their own language by accessing www.sermonsfortheworld.com.  The work and cost to the church are enormous but it’s all about giving to others.

I was invited to be one of the speakers during the weekend celebration for his 60th anniversary of his ministry. Pastor Hymers did not question my wife’s presence even though she did not participate in the programs. Moreover, he offered to fly us first class but I demurred since I would not spend my own money that way, I would not spend the church’s money that way.

It was a few days to be long remembered. First of all, I was honored to celebrate such a lengthy time of service in a day when people don’t stay at anything very long. Dr. Hymers started the church located in downtown Los Angeles which in itself is unusual. Most churches flee to the suburbs since there are so many problems in the inner city. The church owns a very nice building in the middle of the city!

The pastor and people could not have been kinder or more generous to us. They lodged us in a very expensive hotel in a very large room. The meals were first class like the luxury accommodations. We were driven by Dr. Christopher Cagan an associate pastor who has two earned doctorates! Dr. Hymers has three earned doctorates. Another driver was a financial advisor with many prestigious clients. I was shocked and somewhat humbled that such men would take time to move us from point A to point B. And with kindness and a willing attitude. Can these be Fundamentalists? And Fundamentalists sans horns!

Moreover, there were many other active church members who were medical doctors and other professionals, all with a desire to be a help to make our days very special. One of the medical doctors is also an assistant pastor. No one seemed to be a “big time operator” or BTO, but simply Christian servants with a desire to serve. Religious leaders who are impressed with themselves and insist on BTO treatment are wearisome, boring, and a disgrace to the noble calling of ministry.

So, those Fundamentalists didn’t seem to meet the image, propagated by some media and liberal religious groups, of being uneducated wingnuts who bring a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday!

Furthermore, the congregation of about 300 consisted of about 50% from Asian countries and many from various Latin American countries. The remaining were Blacks and Whites. All seemed to be happy, excited Christians. None seemed to meet the mold of White Supremacists, hater, or bigot. I do think I saw a man with a MAGA hat! Could he be a latent hater? After all, if he supports President Trump, surely he is suspect.

Fundamentalists are very generous with their money as well as time. Most teach that every Christian should give at least ten percent of his or her income to the church to meet obligations such as salaries, building payments (if any), utilities, help for the poor, and world missions.

I was in a Florida church of about 400 members recently that gives about $200,000 annually to support missionaries all over the world. That includes financial assistance to missionary church builders, orphanages, medical clinics, radio ministries, prison ministries, bicycles for mission workers, and support for the poor among them.

The closing service in Los Angeles was a big banquet at the Nixon Library where we each enjoyed a $70.00 meal! Every member and guest was given a copy of Dr. Hymers new autobiography Against all Fears. At that time, an offering was received of $3,200.00 for a ministry that works with those Christians who are working and suffering under tyrannical regimes across the globe.

I was shocked when I was given a very generous honorarium and considering the size of the church and the huge expense to get us there, lodge, and feed us, it was the largest honorarium I have received.

For sure the Los Angeles Fundamentalists do things right. The members ended the meeting giving the pastor a massive check in honor of sixty years in the ministry.

He deserved every dollar of it. And at 77 years of age and a cancer survivor, he plans to start another inner-city church next year in Los Angeles!

These Fundamentalists in Los Angeles prove that real Christianity produces good fruit, not religious nuts!

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.

Furthermore, the Bible characters were not immune from a stringent examination of their lives so Graham should not be an exception. If so, then that smacks of being unsavory, unnecessary, and unscriptural hero worship.

I have noticed over the decades that my critics refuse to deal with the core issue; instead, they accuse Graham critics of being jealous or haters, or legalists, or not following Matthew 18.

Billy Graham was my brother in Christ who made some ministerial decisions that I thought very unwise. However, they were very successful on the surface. I have always had great appreciation for him as a person—husband and father. Graham was a conspicuous example of discretion and commitment in a day when some televangelists and megachurch pastors have been caught with their pants down–then flying to exclusive pleasure spots in their multimillion dollar jets.

During his long life, Graham was never involved in a financial or moral scandal! He built and supervised a massive global organization of citywide crusades, a radio and television empire, books, newspaper columns, and movie productions. He was responsible for raising and spending about $100 million annually which would justify a million-dollar salary yet he always received a very modest salary and benefits. No one ever accused Billy Graham of being greedy.

Graham-haters make much of his net worth of $25 million as being excessive; however, when you realize his long life that is not unusual. With a nominal and conservative retirement program started at age 21, he could easily be worth more than that amount. Howard Stern has a net worth of $500 million and Rush Limbaugh is worth $300 million. By any standard, other than financial, Graham was worth far more than both men combined.

Daniel Borochoff, executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group the American Institute of Philanthropy, declared of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, “He’s been looked upon as the gold standard.” No one can legitimately criticize Graham relating to money.

Graham’s personal morality is impeccable and his refusal to be alone with a female, not related to him, is one I have followed all my life. That rule kept him (and me) from a hint of scandal.

Any man who lives about a hundred years, often away from home, with access to large amounts of money without a hint of hanky-panky is to be commended not condemned.

As a friendly critic, I was delighted when the powers-that-be decided to have his body lie in state in the rotunda of the capitol. I took it as an honor to all Christian leaders and a casual endorsement of the Gospel. I was pleasantly surprised when President Trump said, “Billy Graham was 15 years old at the time. Just a few months later he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. That choice didn’t just change Billy’s life, it changed our lives. It changed our country and it changed, in fact, the entire world.” Wow, that is astounding. I hope Trump follows Graham’s example.

Billy Graham’s funeral made an incredible, indelible, and lasting impact on the world! I was surprised, shocked, and satisfied at the clear presentation of the Gospel in song, testimonies, and sermon. President Trump offered the National Cathedral for the funeral but the Grahams opted for a huge tent! Good for them. His funeral at the National Cathedral would have been spiritually grotesque.

The Graham funeral was one of the most spectacular events on television! He was buried on his mountain property after an amazing service in a huge tent. The singing of Bill Gaither was superb, the personal testimonies from Graham’s children were moving, and the message by Franklin Graham was right on target. And all paid for by the liberal media! No doubt atheists’ knees jerked all over America—left ones, of course.

Fox News carried the complete funeral while CNN spent less than 3 minutes on it; however, a few years ago, CNN did run the complete funeral of another Graham—Kay Graham, the late publisher of The New York Times. MSNBC decided 26 seconds was sufficient for Billy Graham! CNN and MSNBC devoted a whole day of coverage to the funeral of Muhammad Ali! Boy, they have their priorities in order!

Graham got his start in a large tent in Los Angles in 1949 when over 350,000 people came to the “Canvas Cathedral” during eight exciting weeks. Some of the Hollywood crowd trusted Christ and according to the media, about 3,000 people trusted Christ or “hit the sawdust trail.” Thousands of hearers listened intently as Graham preached nightly while thousands more listened outside the tent and others in their parked cars.

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 to be a guest 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! Hamblen trusted Christ as Savior and his life was changed immediately. He stopped his wild, hedonist living and soon the Hollywood crowd began to shun him, a typical reaction. Hamblen was fired from his popular radio show because he refused to accept a beer commercial.

Wow, a man of principle! That doesn’t happen very often.

John, one of Stuart’s old Hollywood drinking buddies, asked him one day if “getting religion” was worth all the bad 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. Stuart 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 Wayne’s movies where Hamblen had minor roles. It is noteworthy that one of the six songs chosen by Graham for his funeral was written by Hamblen.

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

When Graham decided to cast his lot with the modernist branch of Christianity thereby rejecting his fundamentalist roots, he received universal support from the media. Very seldom did the press offer even mild criticism; however, the fundamentalist media universally considered his decision a sellout.

The Charlotte Observer, usually very supportive of Graham, observed in 1971 that even some of Graham’s fellow Southern Baptists believed that he was “too close to the powerful and too fond of the things of the world, [and] have likened him to the prophets of old who told the kings of Israel what they wanted to hear.” That would be one of my major disagreements with him.

The major complaint Bible-oriented Christians had with Graham is that he pretended unbelieving ministers were believers to get their cooperation in his crusades. That was wrong and Christ healing a leper illustrates the principle that obedience to Him has priority over telling the Gospel story, even the essential and true story!

In Mark 1:40-45, Christ healed a leper and told him not to broadcast that amazing news lest it hinder His work! That was strange. Why not testify of a personal miracle? According to Old Testament law, when a person contracted leprosy he was to be separated from society. The outcast lived alone in desert places. But now he was free of leprosy but he could not immediately re-enter society.

Such a leprosy-free person had to go the priest for examination before reentering society. This forced the priest to certify Christ’s power even as he opposed Him! Note the difference between Christ’s power and that of the priests: The priests were authorized to pronounce a man clean, but Jesus had the power to make him clean!

Christ told him to see the priest and be examined, then make an offering; however, because he blazed the matter abroad, the crowds hindered Christ from doing His work. Christ could no longer enter cities because of the crowds! His fame hindered rather than helped His ministry! Obviously, having big, excited crowds is not proof of God’s will. Christ’s main purpose was not to heal every leper in Israel but to reveal Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus could no longer openly enter into the city, and was forced to live in desert places. It is interesting that Christ and the leper exchanged living conditions: the leper could now live among the people but Christ lived in “desert places” because of the former leper’s disobedience.

Dr. Billy Graham influenced millions of people but, like every other believer, his main obligation was not preaching but obedience and in that I believe he failed. The healed leper, like Graham, could boast of huge crowds but Christ wanted his obedience not crowds and the leper’s crowds interfered with Christ’s work! The leper sincerely thought he was doing right by drawing great crowds to Christ and was among the first to preach the good news about Jesus but he disobeyed Christ in doing so—just as Billy Graham did.

However, a disobedient Graham may have had an even greater impact at his death than in his life proving that a sovereign God will finally work things out to own satisfaction!

Most sensible people believe that there are two sides to every controversy; however, those same sensible people will not consider the possibility that Graham had faults, failures, and foibles! I am the only one who has provided the historical reality of the life, ministry, and death of Dr. Billy Graham but most people prefer the fable to facts.

Truth still matters and while it will set you free, it often stings!

Boys’ book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is available here. An eBook edition is also available.

Billy’s cooperation, complicity, and compromise with infidel pastors is the core of his sinful failure that brought enormous harm to the cause of Christ at the same time he was trying to reach people for Christ! Inadvertently, he was the source of confusion as he discouraged faithful workers, disrupted the churches, and distorted the Word of God that he was attempting to proclaim!

The uninformed or those who have conformed to the thinking of this world’s philosophy get very queasy when names are called or people are identified as needing to make personal corrections in their lives. However, John the Baptist sure called names even telling the Jews that their religious leaders were “a generation of vipers” in Matt. 3:7. Now that wasn’t the way to win friends and influence Jewish leaders. He told the world that King Herod was living in adultery, and it cost John his head! I hope I will not be “honored” in the same way because of my honest and true criticism of Graham. But when you get a wishy-washy Evangelical angry (he only expresses anger at Fundamentalists) he often reaches for his hatchet.

Paul warned in Rom. 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” He often named names! While he often praised individuals (more than 25 in one chapter), he told two ladies to stop fussing (Phil. 4:2) and pointed out an adulterous affair in the Corinthian church. He told of Hymenaeus and Philetus’ profane and vain babblings. To Timothy he revealed that Alexander the coppersmith did him much evil; He also reported that Demas was a quitter who returned to the world. He warned of Hymenaeus and Alexander’s blasphemy and of Phygellus and Hermogenes’ apostasy. Yes, Paul was a “name caller.”

Even Christ called people “serpents,” “blind guides,” and “hypocrites” in Matt. 23:23-34. According to John 2:15, He even made a whip and chased the money changers from the Temple. Note that it was premeditated in that He “made” the whip. It would take many whips to chase out the money changers today especially the television evangelists who plead like beggars and live like kings as they lie, embellish, and coerce money from the elderly, the naïve, the weak-minded, and the stupid. Sincere Christians are commanded to expose the charlatans as these Christians “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Paul commanded us to “mark” believers who believe contrary to his “doctrine” and “avoid” them (Rom. 16:17). He told us rebuke sharply those who were not sound in the faith, not to be mean, but that they “may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). Moreover, he said that such Christians were to be reproved (Eph. 5:11) and sincere Christians were told to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (II Thes. 3:6). He told us to “reprove, rebuke, exhort” those who need the same (II Tim. 4:2). Few Christians obey that teaching and even attack those who try to faithfully obey!

The Apostle John, the apostle of love, used very strong language in II John 10 and 11. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Graham obviously chose not to follow John’s admonition thinking he could do wrong thereby helping him do right.

I realize that in criticizing such a popular and impressive man, I will expose myself to relentless criticism. That is only reasonable. I expect to be held to the same standard. There is no question that I have failed. However, I can honestly declare that I have never been bought, not by family, friends, foes, or fellowship. I have tried to be consistent with criticism whether of friend or foe.

There is a segment of Christians who think it is wrong to be negative, not understanding that most of the Ten Commandments are negative. They often use Matt. 7:1 as a response to any who criticize others as they tell us it is always wrong to judge others. Of course, they show how immature and uninformed they are when they use that passage against honest critics. Christians are supposed to make judgments every day about right and wrong. Christians are to judge but to judge righteously without being “holier than thou.” We are not to be hasty, harsh, or haughty in our judgment.

After looking at the facts and following Graham’s ministry from its beginning I am compelled to say that he compromised the Word of God to accomplish the task he felt called to do. It is an in- arguable fact that Graham changed 180 degrees in the early 1950s from the fire breathing evangelist who called sin by its name, lambasted Communists, and called out the radical Modernists in the National (then Federal) and World Council of Churches. Then he invited Roman Catholics into his bed. Those are facts that no informed, honest person can deny. However, if you think that plan, practice, and policy is biblical, then you can convince yourself that you have won the discussion. But, if you think Bible commands are important and all of us, without exception, are required to obey then you will be willing to look honestly at Graham’s life and admit that he made major mistakes as he was trying to do good.

Be that as it may, we must never do wrong in the attempt to do right. No exceptions!

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leading Evangelicals are at it again–taking a legitimate issue and twisting the facts for an unreasonable, unacceptable, and unbiblical result. They are beating the drums for more refugees (a tragedy if only one terrorist is included) being admitted into the U.S. and shamelessly attacking the conscience of Christians to win their spurious argument. They conjure up helpless, hopeless, and hapless citizens from Muslim nations who must be settled in the U.S. But they are dishonest, very confused, or fanatical.

The drum beaters have a major job ahead of them because Christians have clearly spoken on this issue. A Pew survey conducted before the election reported that about two-thirds of white Evangelicals (67%) and mainline Protestants (65%) declare that they have no moral responsibility to accept Syrian refugees.

The World Relief people, Christianity Today, Sojourners, etc., are trying to lay heavy layers of guilt upon Christians who resist and criticize accepting refugees into America. An article in Christianity Today yelled, “Evangelical Experts Oppose Trump’s Plan to Ban Refugees.” Note that it was not lay members but experts who oppose a temporary ban on refugees. If the experts have any smarts, they will listen to their constituents. And what qualifies them as experts?

Ed Stetzer, Wheaton College professor and blogger, wrote, “First, we must continue to reject false facts.” Ed, there is no such thing as “false facts.” Building up steam like an old-time Pentecostal tent evangelist he said, “I’m pro-life because the unborn are made in the image of God, as are refugees. So, I’m pro-refugee because I am pro-life.” It is commendable that Ed is pro-life but that position does not require a principled person to be pro-refugee especially when some of the refuges will turn out to be terrorists.

But Ed disagrees. He wrote, “This is a safe program and one that evangelicals like me say, even if Trump will not, ‘Give [us] your … huddled masses, yearning to be free.’” His declaration that more refugees placed in America is a “safe program” cannot be verified.

The promoters of more refugees seem to assume that the U.S. is the only available nation for refugees; however, that dog won’t hunt. The Muslim nations should have first call on accepting refuges from Syria, Libya, Somalia, etc. Why move refugees away from their own geographical area to a nation that is totally alien to them in language, religion, customs, law, industry, etc.?

While it is dangerous to question motives of people, I would be slothful if I did not point out that many of these Evangelical pro-refugee non-profits get buckets of money from the government and other entities to plead the case of moving additional refugees to the U.S.

The U.S. government is shoveling buckets of cash into religious non-profit groups whose purpose is to deliver more immigrants into your neighborhood and provide amnesty to the gatecrashers already here. This is part of a one billion dollar annual refugee resettlement budget that is resulting in the ruin, rampage, and rape of our culture. Moreover, it will only accelerate because of more than 3 million Muslims having permanent residence and 250,000 being added each year! These facts suggest a major cultural shift has started in our nation.

Jim Wallis is the president of Sojourners (a leftwing religious/social outfit) and said that “Evangelicals finally realize that how we treat the stranger, these 11 million undocumented people, is how we treat Christ himself.” Jim must have been sleeping during his hermeneutics class in seminary because he did not get that from the Bible. Of course, Christians are to be kind, gracious, generous, and helpful; but that does not translate into being suckers, softies, and sentimentalists.

Wallis added that the leadership of the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), which includes the National Association of Evangelicals and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Convention of the Southern Baptist Convention, has “never been more united on an issue.” However, that is a little misleading. Of course, the feeble evangelical leaders are singing from the same page but the evangelical congregation is singing another song. The vast majority of evangelical church members want illegal immigrants to go home. A 2014 Pulse Opinion poll revealed that 78 percent of Evangelicals surveyed believed that the biblical command to “love the stranger” means “to treat the stranger humanely while applying the rule of law.”

If the social-minded Evangelicals want to help refugees then they should not expect American tax-payers to fund their altruism. They can dig into their church coffers and into individual retirement plans to accomplish that purpose. Furthermore, these religious groups are paid by the feds for each refugee they settle in your neighborhood! Follow the money.

Not only the feds but George Soros, the international money speculator, is sugar daddy to the EIT, a leftist group of Christian leaders that never saw a socialist scheme they didn’t like. Soros’ agenda, in addition to making money, is to promote every leftwing program especially transplanting Muslims into Europe and America. He is funding various religious non-profits to accomplish that task. National Review, reported that EIT receives a substantial portion of its funding from groups backed by George Soros. Keep following the money.

Evangelical leaders want to bring more and more Muslims to the U.S. and hand you the bill. Yet, experts tell us there may be 3 to 7 million Muslims in the U.S. and of those Muslims polled, nearly 20% agreed that use of violence to implement Sharia law is justified and 25% declared that it is acceptable to use violence to punish those who offend Islam in their portrayal of Mohammed!

Such people sound to me like terrorists not refugees.

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.

You do not think Dallas Willard “strays into universalism” with his teaching but he does. Some Universalists believe even Satan will be rehabilitated while others believe that all humans, who have not been atheists, will be saved even if they have never heard of Christ. Of course that is universalism.

You mentioned that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, David Koresh, and Kenneth Copeland “are all great examples of heretics in the past 200 years whose teachings can lead their followers toward damnation.” However, the teaching of Willard, Schuller, Graham and others can have the very same effect. Moreover, what about your earlier statement, “Perhaps God might save those who have not heard Christ simply through general revelation.” Why should your list of religious leaders not be saved especially if they were sincere—even sincerely wrong? If God would extend His grace to heathen, then surely He would do so to those sincere “Christian” leaders.

Your next statement is astounding when you said, “I would venture to say that a person could drink a pint of beer everyday with dinner, smoke a pack a week, play poker with his buddies every Friday, go swing dancing with his girlfriend every Saturday, listen to heavy metal rock music, cover his body with tattoos and piercings, grow his hair down to his waist and dye it purple, grow out a beard to his chest, play video games with non-Christian friends, literarily use the F-word, wind-down after work each day to an hour of television, and still have a thriving relationship with the Almighty Triune God of the Bible. The big question is whether he is living a life of complete subjugation [Surely you did not mean to use this word. Maybe you meant ‘subjection.’] to God—by serving God and serving his neighbor. While I do not advocate these activities, I will also not make a list of activities not expressly condemned in the New Covenant. The question is because everything is permissible, how is what I am doing with my life glorifying to Christ?”

How in the world can you even suggest that such a person could be living “a life of complete subjection to God”? And how could such a person be “glorifying to Christ”? On the one hand, you wrote, “I will also not make a list of activities not expressly condemned in the New Covenant,” but then you stated, “everything is permissible.” It is astounding that you would consider acceptable for a Christian anything not specifically forbidden by Scripture. (Does the New Covenant forbid cannibalism?) Then your “everything is permissible” statement is contradictory. Moreover, what did Paul mean when he told the Romans (and us) not to be conformed to this world? If the above hypothetical “Christian” was not conformed to this world, then what must one do to qualify as doing so? Additionally, I cannot ignore the teaching of the Old Testament in this discussion.

God demands that His work be done in a godly way. Remember when God killed Uzzah in II Sam. 6:6-7 when he tried to do a good thing in the wrong way by reaching out to steady the cart that was carrying the ark of the Lord. I would have killed the oxen for being so clumsy but God punished Uzzah for his “error” (or rashness).

What do you think it means when Paul said in II Cor. 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”? If a man is a new creature, how can he live like an old creature?

Moreover, getting tattoos and piercings are unscriptural as per Lev. 19:28: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” Is that “legalism” or is it as compelling (although not as serious) as “Thou shalt not kill”?

Furthermore, is Paul’s statement in I Cor. 11:14 still germane? “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Is it legalism to expect men to obey that teaching?

Regarding music, you said, “Many of the tunes to the beloved hymns we sing (including our national anthem!) were originally from drinking songs set with Christian lyrics.” Then you listed songs that were not “drinking songs.” Surely you do not equate Beethoven’s music with drinking songs! Moreover, you did not mention any “drinking songs.” It is alleged by many that Luther and Wesley took saloon melodies and put Christian words to them but that is not true. It is believed that this misconception developed because some of the tunes used by Luther were in German “Bar form” which means a three-part stanza–not a location where the songs were performed. Luther did take some of the old Roman Catholic tunes and put Scriptural words to them. That did not make the Pope a happy camper! But Luther didn’t care and neither do I.

You wrote, “I do not find any indication of God’s musical preference in Holy Writ,” but just before Calvary, Christ and the Disciples sang a “hymn” according to Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26. Paul told the Ephesians in 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” He also encouraged the church at Colosse (Col. 3:16) to teach and admonish each other with “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” There is no doubt that the early church sang the Psalms; in fact, the Psalms were the hymnbook of the early church.

You suggested, “In many circumstances, antiquated musical styles can become a hindrance to those who desire the freedom to worship God. God provided such wonderful diversity in the Church just as he created such wonderful diversity in the world; it brings us to our knees and makes us realize that this worship is not about us.” This seems to be your justification for the use of any style of music in church services. Christians should not see how close they can get to worldliness without offending God, but how far away from worldliness they can get without unnecessarily offending men.

You opined, “It seems as though many Protestants who are against contemporary church music use some of the same reasons that the Catholics did during the Protestant Reformation.” The Catholics were offended because Luther’s new lyrics were offensive to Catholics. Of course, Catholics were offensive because the new lyrics ridiculed and opposed their false doctrine. However, some Christians today are offended by some of the new music, not because it is new, but because it is loud, raucous, unscriptural, shallow, vapid, etc. If the lyrics are so loud or garbled that no message is perceived then it is useless and out of place. If the band or orchestra is so loud that it breaks streetlights in front of the church, it is too loud and disgraceful. Furthermore, it also damages the hearing.

Bach, whom you praised earlier was right on the music issue. While serving as cantor at Thomas Church of Leipzig, Bach taught Luther’s Small Catechism. Bach stated: “The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. If heed is not paid to this, it is not true music but a diabolical bawling and twanging.” That was an example of taking the correct position.

I agree with the prophet Amos when he wrote in Amos 5:23, “Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.” (An instrument that preceded the guitar that was plucked.)

Also, much of the opposition to contemporary church music is not really about the music but all the change that goes with it, including doctrinal positions, ministry approach (entertainment vs. evangelization), attitude toward God, etc.

Then you got into deep weeds when you said, “I would not write off historical practices wholesale by the mere fact that Catholic mystics practiced it.” Of course not. Catholic mystics ate, took a bath (occasionally) and worked in their gardens. However, when the monks did things that are supposed to be religious, that is a different matter. There is no scriptural basis for self-flagellation, penance, not bathing, not cutting finger nails, sleeping on cold floors, long periods of silence, not eating meat, etc. They thought they were made good by feeling bad. It all goes back to works or seeking to satisfy a holy God. It is incredible that intelligent Christian leaders are trying to lead churches back into those days where church leaders should never have gone in the first place.

You wrote, “Too many times, however, [among Fundamentalists] the joy and love of Christ Jesus seems absent from their teaching; it becomes overshadowed by angry and harsh rhetoric lashing out against those who are not part of their community and living by their cultural expectations; it is not simply that they are loud.” I have noticed that there is more harshness, loudness, unfairness, and anger on the part of mushy evangelicals and liberals toward Fundamentalists than how Fundamentalists react to their critics. Among the Emergent Church people and megachurch people there is far more tolerance for homosexuals, Muslims, abortionists, etc., than for Christian Fundamentalists! Wonder why? Could we be a threat to them and their useless dogmas? Then again, maybe it is guilt because informed Evangelicals know that they are backslidden Fundamentalists! At least their parents were Fundamentalists.

Did you use Paul’s statement about his being willing to become all things so that the Gospel will be known to all people (1 Cor. 9:22) as a justification for fellowshipping and uniting with worldings and unbelievers? He was saying that he would not pursue something legitimate if his doing so might hinder a person trusting Christ. For example, if I am witnessing to a black man, I will not bring up Martin Luther King, Jr. as being a charlatan, adulterer, plagiarist, etc., since that is not necessary to that person’s salvation. However, after he trusts Christ and I am mentoring him, I may deal with King, Jackson, Sharpton, and other Blacks who rode to power on the backs of other Blacks. It is a matter of the uninformed Black becoming an educated person who accepts people as what they are not what race they may be. I can easily prove my contention about black opportunists but it could be unproductive, even harmful to the concerned Black, even though everything I tell him would be truthful. Paul is saying, “Why offend people when it will do no good? In matters of customs, dress, ceremony, I will conform to them, as far as I can, for the purpose of winning them.” I agree with Paul, not you.

As an aside, note that Paul spoke of saving “some.” If Willard, Schuller, Graham and Company are correct, then Paul would not have been concerned since all not “some” would be saved.

Your quotes by [Bryan Crawford] Loritts, (who chided Reformed Christians at this year’s Elephant Room conclave for criticizing T. D. Jakes for his heresy regarding the Godhead), “The goal of all ministry is transformation,” and, “Don’t ever stand in front of a group of people with a Bible in your hand and not expect change” are right on target. I certainly agree; however, if that means, as you wrote, “Christians need to be reading and interacting with books, movies, and ideas of the present age, for that is where the people are giving much of their attention,” then I disagree. When I got saved, I was not perfected but I was changed and all Christians are to be in the process of becoming in the image of Christ. Yes, it is important for Christians to be informed, but that requires discretion. For Christians to drink, share dirty stories, watch filthy television shows and movies and profess that they are becoming all things to all people and are engaging the culture is pure poppycock. They are, in my opinion, trying to justify ungodly, unscriptural living. You imply that such people should be given a religious “merit badge.”

You said that “I will engage in the corrupt culture as flavoring and savoring salt and enlightening and prophetic light by means of the Holy Spirit.” I don’t think that is Christian living as per the New Testament. I am not sure how you are using “engage.” I think your statement says you are not fighting the culture but participating with the culture. You seem to be saying you will “participate in the corruption” in order to be salt and light, i.e., to show that you are one of them, but II Cor. 6:17 tells us not to be “one of them” and to come out from among them and be separate. Paul adds also that we should not touch the unclean thing. Of course, personal and ecclesiastical separation is one of the major differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

It is my opinion that Christians should not love the world, talk like the world, dress like the world, nor act like the world. However, we should not withdraw from the world as the medieval mystics did to the extent that we are hermits and have no influence with the lost. I have discovered that those Christians who talk about being involved with the culture whereby almost anything is acceptable are simply trying to justify an ungodly lifestyle. Hence, those people can go to dirty movies, watch television (or videos) filled with obscenities and nudity, drink alcohol, read salacious literature, etc., without any feelings of guilt.

However, guilt is present whether felt or not and sin needs to be confessed and forsaken.

Thanks for writing.

You used “Eucharist” in your article and I think that is an unscriptural, unnecessary and unwise capitulation to the Roman Catholic Church that teaches that rite is necessary for salvation. I am sure you don’t believe that but it is a matter of importance.

You declared that infant baptism “holds in its favor historical and traditional longevity.” Note that you did not mention any Scriptural support! And the fact that Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., believed in infant baptism means little. I won’t take time to enumerate a list of their other theological errors.

A Child is not saved “through the faith of his/her parents” and the fact that Christ told His disciples not to keep children from coming to Him has nothing to do with them getting saved. While you are correct in that He said that the kingdom was as children, but that has no reference to them being members of a church. Matt. 19:14 records Jesus saying, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Children are not members of a Bible-preaching church until they are saved and baptized.

You are not correct in your statement regarding baptism. You wrote, “In ‘believer’s baptist’ circles, baptism is a declaration before God and his people of the individual’s commitment to live for Jesus Christ.” Not really. Your arrow hit the target but missed the bull’s eye. Baptism is a public confession of faith in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection “according to the scriptures” and a desire to serve Him in a Bible preaching church.

You declared concerning child dedication, “In many covenantal pedo-baptist circles, baptism fulfills a similar role. Infant dedication would then be like infant baptism: without the water yet with the commitment.” No, those groups that baptize infants do so to protect them from hell. Calvin wrote, “By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ … infants are to be baptized … children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism” (Institutes, IV). One of the two reasons Calvin had Servetus killed was his rejection of infant baptism for salvation.

Calvin declared in chapter 15 of his Institutes that, “Children dying before baptism [are] not excluded from heaven, provided the want of it was not caused by negligence or contempt”; and later wrote, “Children who happen to depart this life before an opportunity of immersing them in water, are not exclude from the kingdom of heaven.” It seems that Calvin, like all fallible men was inconsistent and contradictory at times. And almost all theologians disagree with Calvin’s teaching that Christ suffered in Hell! (Book II, Chapter 16 of Institutes.)

Augustine taught that babies who had never been “baptized” would be damned although they would receive a lesser punishment than unbaptized adults. (See my lengthy article on Calvinism at my website, www.cstnews.com.)

Calvin also wrote, “Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence; churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.” Please note that Calvin admitted that “baptize” means to immerse but “is not of the least consequence.” So men have a right to practice whatever they choose?

Calvin added, “…at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole life…we must…recall our baptism…so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins…it wipes and washes away all our defilements” (IV: xv, 3). Calvin contradicted himself in his Institutes. A theologian told me that Calvin changed his mind and his Institutes were a long time in production, finished when he was not yet 30 years old. His book was constantly revised by Calvin until the fifth edition before his death was five times larger than the first edition.

Furthermore, you are not correct in stating that the evangelization of children is a “divine mystery on which Scripture remains silent.” Children become Christians like anyone else as they hear and believe the old, old story of Christ.

Augustine was wrong about many things but he corrected at least one error—that the Church of Christ was built upon Peter. As he got older, he retracted what he at first believed about the foundation of the Roman Church. He wrote, “I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the ‘Rock’; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church,’ must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be ‘the Son of the Living God.’ Peter so named after this ‘Rock’ represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, ‘thou art Petra,’ but ‘thou art Petros,’ and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter.” Augustine 151.

You seem to commend Bach when he submitted to the king’s command to change from writing “Protestant” hymns to Roman Catholic masses because he was submissive to authority. Submitting to authority is scriptural; however, it is not scriptural to submit if such submission is compromise of truth. Bach compromised to save his skin, or his status or his salary—most likely all three. It was a cowardly yet human thing to do. If Bach was right then you must think the 2,000 preachers in England were wrong when they went to jail or lost their pulpits for refusing to obey the law requiring them to use the Common Book of Prayer.

In the 1600s, the government of England started losing control in Wales when hundreds of independent churches and chapels were established by Nonconformist Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others. The Nonconformists were gaining too much influence in England and Wales so the King and 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! All who refused to follow the common prayer book were ejected from the Church. Out of approximately 10,000 preachers throughout the country, about 2,000 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. If you think those principled preachers were right then how can you believe Bach was right in his decision? Aren’t laymen, even famous and talented laymen, expected to be as principled and godly as preachers?

You asked if we are being loving by “Arguing over music styles, versions of the Bible,…orders of worship and liturgies?” What is wrong with discussing, even debating such issues? Is that not healthy? Why not discuss, debate, and disagree (if necessary) over such issues? Are we that fragile? Such discussions can help wavering or uncertain preachers come to a firm decision and that would be very beneficial.

You are totally wrong about Dallas Willard. You wrote, “Nowhere will we find Dallas Willard stating that he believes that one may be saved without Christ, but in his article, he is open to the idea that God’s grace might extend to those who have never heard of Christ—but God has somehow revealed himself in some other way.” No, Dallas was not “open to the idea” since he made it clear what he believed: men can be saved without hearing about Christ! Your above statement defending Willard even smacks of heresy. Your graciousness seems to make a mockery of English and common sense.

The reason we left Highland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga was because Tennessee Temple University had Willard as a guest lecturer even after I thoroughly documented his heretical teachings. In fact, Pastor Bouler refused to discuss the issue with me. We are now very contented members of a small Independent Baptist Church in LaFayette, GA.

There is no “other way.” Either Christ is the only way to Heaven or not. (See Acts 4:12.) And to say that “God’s grace might extend to those who have never heard of Christ” is humanist speculation and totally without biblical foundation.

Willard clearly stated his position when he wrote in Cutting Edge, “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life.” He added, “It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.” The first two are clear statements of salvation by works and the last is totally opposed by orthodox teaching of the last 2,000 years. It is an incredible statement without scriptural support. If he is not wading into the high weeds of heresy then where is he?

You stated, “Nobody is damned without choosing to reject the Jesus of the Scriptures.” Are you sure you believe that? The fact, supported by Scripture, is that all men are condemned already (John 3:18) and must place faith in the finished work of Christ. It is not necessary that they choose “to reject the Jesus of the Scriptures.”

Then you added, “Who knows how deep and wide God’s grace and salvation reaches? Perhaps God might save those who have not heard Christ simply through general revelation.” That is what Willard, Schuller, Graham, and Company believe and the Apostles would have rebuked such preachers then fled from them like their hair was on fire. General revelation will not save anyone from Hell.

Each man has the ability to know the difference in right and wrong and experience guilt when he chooses wrong over right. John 1:9 informs us, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” So all men have reason and conscience along with the ability to make judgments about their responsibility toward a just and powerful God to whom they will give an account. If men reject that light (that every person has), then God will not send them additional light or special revelation whereby they may be saved.

There is no doubt that Greek and Roman philosophers were aware of the one true God; however, it was not usually taught to common people. After all, they were committed to the numerous “gods” as proclaimed by their priests. Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote, “You do not see God, and yet you acknowledge him as God by his works.” That is general revelation. However, acknowledging Him as God is not sufficient. If it were, why would Christ have died?

Gibbon remarked that “the [Greek] philosophers regarded all the popular superstitions [religions] as equally false; the common people as equally true; and the politicians as equally useful.” The Greek and Roman leaders used religion to control the people who trusted in a Pantheon of gods. The officials were smart enough to know that religion was the glue that held nations together regardless of the kind of government. The Greeks and Romans should have known that their helpless pagan idols could not create the world, and only a great, sovereign, powerful God could have done so. They could have inferred that from general revelation.

Paul deals with this principle in Acts 17:23 where he started with general revelation and ended up preaching Christ or special revelation when he told the Athenians that their “unknown god” was Jesus Christ. He is the God that made the world and all things therein, the Creator of heaven and earth. The idea of an unknown creator/god was admitted by many Greek philosophers; but those of Aristotle’s school denied it, and maintained “that the world was from eternity, and every thing always was what now it is.” Plato, Cicero, and other philosophers were aware of a sovereign God but did not deal with it in their discourses with common people.

Through general revelation, the Athenians knew there was a God over all gods who was responsible for everything and Paul said, “That is the One I want you to know.” This was dangerous for Paul because it was a capital offense to introduce any new god or new religion into the state (the very thing that he was accused of doing). However, Paul was saying, “The unknown god that you have been worshipping, I declare him to you now. I am only explaining what you have already recognized.”

General revelation is necessary as a prelude to special revelation, for if a person is not convinced that there is a sovereign God responsible for “all this” then they are not ready to hear about Christ. Most Biblicist theologians would say that general revelation is not salvific or redemptive but is preparatory to special revelation. General revelation may reveal to the sin-admitting heathen some of God’s attributes such as His divinity, His omnipotence, His omniscience, maybe His omnipresence, His wisdom, His goodness, His philanthropy, etc., but could never reveal Christ’s vicarious death as the propitiation for man’s sins.

There is no possibility of salvation through general revelation alone. Being sincere, honest, wanting wisdom, recognizing a creator–God are good but requires more—faith in Christ. Willard, Schuller, Graham and Company are wrong and are wading knee-deep into heretical waters.

Paul in Rom 1:19 tells us that God’s judgment upon man is justified because man can know about God from natural revelation. What can be known of God by man is obvious but man has chosen to reject that information “for God hath shewed it unto them.”

Rom. 1:20 is often used to support the teaching that men can be saved by general revelation, i.e., without knowledge of Christ. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Paul said that the creation permits men to clearly see; however, it does not say they are saved. Therefore, they are without excuse.

Rom. 1:21 says, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” So men, even pagan non-Jews, knew God but refused to recognize Him as God. The Roman Cicero wrote, “What can be so plain and manifest, when we look at heaven, and contemplate heavenly things, as that there is some Divinity of most excellent mind, by which these things are governed?”

Since men chose to refuse His information and recognize His presence, they were doomed to idolatry. When they refused to willingly accept His benefices they became hard of heart and did not revel in His mercy in sending rain, warm weather, food, rest, children, etc. In other words, they were ungrateful and rather than fix their gaze upon a Supreme omnipotent God, they fixed their affections on the sun, stars, moon, etc. They began to worship the creation instead of the Creator. Consequently, God gave them up to a vile lifestyle. And since they turned from what revelation they had, they are without excuse. After reasoning that a powerful God must have put the universe in place, there is no excuse to bow before graven idols that have eyes to see yet see not and ears to hear yet hear not. Consequently, men continued to walk in darkness.

Acts 14:17 informs us that “Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” However, the heathen rejected that good God and chose paganism.  (To be continued.)

Progressive promoters of permissiveness have been pitching perversion in the school house, court house, and state house, and church house for 50 years. And now the White House. Some think that is smart, sensible and almost sacred but I think it is scandalous, seamy, and almost seditious. America is quickly becoming Sodom with electric lights, smog, and interstates. It is a broad way that leads to destruction–this road to Sodom.

Religious changes in society take long periods of time to create but not with this issue. The Homosexual Lobby with the help of academia and Hollywood has produced the greatest and swiftest change in any culture in history–the general acceptance of perversion as normal, even admirable, courageous, and daring.

When some of us insist that we sincerely believe perversion is sinful and detrimental to the participants as well as society, we are told not to moralize about perversion while they moralize about those of us who moralize about perversion! When it comes to perversion, the left has tolerance for almost everyone except those of us who will not tolerate perversion.

In a New York Times editorial a few weeks ago, columnist Frank Bruni insisted that Christians must be “made” to change their church doctrines on sexual morality. He actually wrote, “Church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off their sin list.” And alas, many “Evangelicals” have been doing just that while clinging hypocritically to their Bibles! But then, we didn’t make the sin list, God did! Mushy evangelicals are changing their minds about homosexuality as seen in the support for same-sex “marriage” that soared from 20% in 2003 to 42% in 2014 according to Time magazine. Such a change is unprecedented.

Recently Ireland was the first nation to approve same sex “marriage.” This was a self-indictment and indication of a massive failure of the Roman Catholic Church. Ireland should have been one of the last nations to put the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on perversion.

The East Lake Community Church near Seattle became one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to vigorously support unrepentant LGBTQ people! This “Evangelical” megachurch is known for rock-music worship and believing and teaching the Bible! But Pastor Ryan Meeks, age 36, is leading the charge to make perversion acceptable. “I refuse to go to a church where my friends who are gay are excluded from Communion or a marriage covenant or the beauty of Christian community,” Meeks said. The pathetic pastor added, “It is a move of integrity for me—the message of Jesus was a message of wide inclusivity.” Incredible. It seems that young preachers have been infected with a pernicious virus that will end up killing everyone. Meeks doesn’t understand that homosexuals are not included into decent society because of their disgusting, depraved, and dangerous behavior.

Furthermore, Meeks doesn’t know (or care) that Christ was very narrow when He said, “Ye must be born again.” And in Matt. 7:14 He warned, “narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Meeks is wrong.

Time quotes Pastor Meeks saying, “Every positive reforming movement in church history is first labeled heresy. Evangelicalism is way behind on this. We have a debt to pay.” However, for churches to acquiesce to the Homosexual Lobby and approve same sex “marriage” is not reformation but apostasy. The only debt I own is to teach people the truth whether they want to hear it or not and totally disregard the tsunami of false propaganda from the “gay” crowd.

Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California, Andy Stanley of North Point Community Church in Atlanta and Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church have been metaphorically meeting with proactive homosexuals in church basements singing “Kumbaya” for years. They have adjusted their biblical views so as not be judgmental about the swingers in their pews. James Dobson’s third string successor, Jim Daly, the doleful president of Focus on the Family, has developed a friendship with LGBT activists and huddles with them to better understand their problems.

Recently, Rick Warren made a fool of himself when he held hands with flaming homosexual activist Elton John (who has more earrings than my wife) during a Senate Hearing! Rick’s unnecessary, untoward, and unscriptural statement to Elton was, “If I kissed you it would be the kiss heard around the world.” No doubt every buzzard in Arizona regurgitated in response.

The once Fundamental, now Evangelical, Wheaton College (Billy Graham’s alma mater) hired a celibate lesbian in its chaplain’s office! Have the loonies taken over everywhere?

Super elite Wesleyan University, always on the cutting edge now offers LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM housing (Not a Typo). For the culturally oblivious among us, LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM stands for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender****, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism.” Wonder what John Wesley (the school’s namesake) thinks as he observes such depraved activities from Heaven? The university employs a Jewish Rabbi, a Catholic Priest, a Protestant Chaplain, and a Muslim Chaplain. One word accurately describes Wesleyan: apostasy!

Many Christians stand around, cluck their tongues, and moan about the apostasy but are too lazy, cowardly, or unconcerned to grab a sword and get into the battle. It is past time to come out of the prayer closet (for a while) and get in the fight. It is important to pray but fighting is necessary although not as safe. We not only have a right and responsibility to oppose the rush to Sodom by the media, academia, etc., but we are right in our position! It is the Christian coward who says “I don’t like your militant, critical opposition of same sex “marriage,” but I support your right to be a bigot.” We are not bigots. We are right!

America now accepts as normal what would have shocked our grandparents: fornication, bastard babies, divorce, same-sex “marriage,” daycare, fast-food dinners, loss of privacy to gain promised safety, etc. But then rebels have always delighted in shocking their parents.

Time was right in one respect when they affirmed that all sides agree that “the Bible itself is at stake.” Of course, the Bible will endure regardless of the reaction to it; but in a sense, the Bible is at stake. Is it true or not? Are we still obligated to obey its teachings of not? Is there still a curse on those who deny, denigrate, and denounce it? Will God destroy a civilization that rejects the Word and approves perversion?

The “Evangelical” churches and some Fundamentalist churches can reject Bible truths as antiquated and approve, applaud, even advocate for perversion, but I will not yield. I love people enough and still hold my ordination vows sacred so I will tell people the truth. I will not yield to perversion.

What you are hearing daily in this world of sexual compromise, collusion, and corruption is the death rattle of a once-great nation.

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!”

Genuine Fundamentalists are clean, caring, and committed Christians living according to the New Testament, worshiping in simple, relatively inexpensive buildings (or homes), and a few megachurches. Like early Christians, Bible-believers today generally eschew liturgy, human doctrines, vestments, and repetitive and meaningless gestures. They seek to reach others; but, at the same time, cautioning, contending, and confronting laymen and leaders who are too much involved in this world’s affairs. They are what the early Christians were and are willing to experience poverty, prison and persecution for the truth. Most of today’s Christianettes seek prosperity, preference, and popularity.

Even infidel theologians such as the late Kirsopp Lake, Professor Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School and author of the five-volume The Beginnings of Christianity, affirmed that Fundamentalism is original Christianity! He made an incredible statement that should shake mainline churches to their foundations: “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 Fundamentalist side. Remember, he was an expert on the New Testament and ecclesiastical history! Moreover, he agrees with me!

So today’s New Testament churches (that includes some Evangelicals) are original Christianity and should be making an impact on our culture as the early churches did, but the fact is our success is limited because the culture is driving us! Our churches are not the master or the servant of the state but are to be the conscience of the state and society. We must be the state’s critic but not its tool.

Most American and Canadian pastors are silent and most churches could close their doors without anyone noticing since they have become little, irrelevant, homogeneous groups that have monthly pitch-in dinners and weekly hot chocolate huddles in church basements. Maybe a revival meeting each year. Few preachers actually confront society with the Gospel and with Bible truths. That means America’s mess can be attributed directly to our pulpits!

Fact: if a preacher is not contending, he is not a true preacher of God. The truth is that every Fundamentalist is a fighting Fundamentalist. Not fighting everyone, not fighting all the time, and never being mean, but fighting by counseling, cautioning, confronting, and combating political, religious, social, and business leaders while also presenting the claims of Christ to them. We must be scriptural, sincere, strong, and never silent.

Many preachers are telling us that modern Christians are not to contend for the faith as the old timers did; after all, it isn’t cool and drives people away from the church. But then, people should be driven away from many churches! Such critics think they are obeying the Bible but they are not. Compromisers were wrong yesterday, are wrong today, and will be wrong tomorrow and will finally be convinced of it in eternity. These New Evangelicals and Very Mushy Fundamentalists (VMF) have digressed and departed and deserted Bible Christianity. True Fundamentalists (or if you prefer, New Testament Christians) stand where genuine Christians have always stood: upon the inspired, infallible, indispensable Word of God. The corollary is to obey New Testament instructions which involves contending, rebuking, and coming out from among them. But doing so according to Eph. 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love.”

The woods are full of Evangelicals or conservatives, even Fundamentalists, who desire peace above purity and unity over truth. They are willing to tolerate apostasy, not confronting others for their heresy, and are therefore not original Christians! The Bible commands us to “shun” some (II Tim. 2:16); and to “turn away” from others (II Tim. 3:5); then “mark them . . .[in order to] avoid” those who are not doctrinally correct (Rom. 16:17); furthermore, those who do not hold to the doctrine of Christ are not to be received “into your house neither bid them God speed” (II John 10). We are even told to not be involved with and to separate from Christians who walk in disobedience. (II Thess. 3:6.) Finally, we are to “come out from among” compromisers and evil doers (II Cor. 6:17); but that requires all who are members of an unbiblical church or denomination to leave. That means leaving family and friends and joining a fellowship that teaches truth.

The departure from Bible Christianity started at the very beginning of the church age and accelerated into the Middle Ages; however, it exploded during the 1900s until today. The major catalyst for this was the National Association of Evangelicals who were embarrassed to be associated with Fundamentalists. The loosey-goosey NAE wanted to present a soft, sophisticated, and scholarly persona to the world and they had eight complaints against Fundamentalists which were listed in Christian Life Magazine, March, 1956. There was a tinge of truth to some of their complaints but only a tinge. For example, no one could be against true scholarship; however, radical scholarship is really radical unbelief in amateurish disguise.

Get your barf bag ready. Each one is as dangerous as a landmine in a schoolyard: 1) a friendly attitude toward science; 2) a willingness to re-examine beliefs concerning the work of the Holy Spirit; 3) a more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology; 4) a shift away from so-called extreme dispensationalism; 5) an increased emphasis on scholarship; 6) a more definite recognition of social responsibility; 7) a re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration; and 8) a growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians. Ahh yes, converse but never confront.

Each of the eight screams compromise, collusion, corruption, and capitulation. The Evangelicals pulled away from the Fundamentalists which would not have a tragedy but they got a makeover strangely resembling the unbelieving modernists! The Evangelicals’ indulgent, irrelevant, implausible, and inaccurate preaching further added to their error.

Like insecure teens looking for approval, the renovated Christian leaders abandoned the high ground of the Bible for the slime pits of a mushy Evangelicalism. Mushy Fundamentalists march more slowly than the Evangelicals but they march in the same direction and eventually arrive at the same destination: compromise, collusion, corruption, and capitulation.

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. People leave church at noon with their depths unstirred, their hearts untouched, and their consciences unpricked. They leave church licking on a stone rather than chewing on bread.

Church goers need to hear from Heaven; instead they often hear from a denominational bureaucrat or warmed-over sermons from Rick Warren or Bill Hybels.

The further churches drift away from biblical truth, the more the hatred is dumped upon those who expose the drift away from original Christianity.

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!”