It is surprising that the editor, in writing that statement, did not drown in his own gall since CT has never taken an historic stand for biblical inerrancy. That is one of the main reasons the CT crowd, known as loosey-goosey Evangelicals, split away from orthodox Christianity. In doing so, they jumped into bed and snuggled up to almost anyone with a divinity degree and a silver cross necklace. Truth, since it often stings, doesn’t matter to them.

I suggest that Galli be fired before he retires; however, CT is known for being spineless and for decades has been known for not having strong opinions about anything—except an undisguised loathing for biblical Christianity and now Trump.

That’s how they can live with the Democrats’ fabricated, flawed, even false impeachment pitch that would make former honest Democrats blanch with horror.

According to Franklin Graham, his daddy, who gave the first $10,000 to start CT, repudiated the magazine many years ago. Franklin also revealed that his dad voted for Trump.

The editor declared, “There was an unambiguous, clear, and single instance in which the President of the United States used his power to try to coerce a head of state to harass one of his political opponents.” Well, it may be unambiguous to him but to most Americans, Trump was trying to make sure that political corruption was being handled as he is required to do before foreign aid is dispersed.

The loosey-goosey approach to the Bible has enabled CT to defend and promote a vast assortment of left wingers while it excoriates Trump. Such inconsistencies, normal for the magazine, even permitted their defense of Karl Barth. Barth’s doctrine and lifestyle cannot be defended by any thinking, principled person. Barth was a Marxist, rejected capitalism, and brought his mistress into his home with his wife and children! He rejected inerrancy as does CT and was a Universalist according to other famous theologians—Brunner, Balthasar, and Berkouwer.

CT is far more comfortable with Barth the Marxist than Boys the Biblicist!

CT has the ink and paper and missionary zeal to criticize Trump (and of course, there is much to criticize) but they are not as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when they praise a theological jerk like Karl Barth. Someone’s not thinking straight or someone doesn’t care about balance and truth.

But CT has plenty of ink and paper to demand the President, chosen by 63 million Americans, be removed from office.

Moreover, what does that say about the 63 million people who voted for him and the 75 million who plan to vote for him in 2020?

CT’s history of condescending false intellectualism is pitiful, nauseating, and embarrassing. The magazine has been progressively leaning left since its founding by Billy Graham and some lifetime Fundamentalists who were ashamed of their heritage and had insatiable desires for acceptance and respectability in the religious world.

CT’s founders did not agree with the Apostle Paul’s command to “come out from among them” because they wanted to stay in their corrupt denominations and maintain their perks, power, and positions. After all, they reasoned, one can carry personal and doctrinal purity just so far. They also did not want to pay the price of being shunned, slandered, and sacked by their churches. Many religious leaders had moved up in this world and enjoyed the good life. So they had to be careful about whom they antagonized. Same is true today. One must be practical, you know.

CT is careful not to alienate the intellectual left and they accuse those who do of being attack dogs while the CT writers have been lap dogs from their first issue. Real Christian leaders are supposed to be watch dogs. After all, there are still wolves out there who are seeking to destroy the flock. CT editors have been dumb dogs of Isaiah (that’s one D.D. I don’t want) who refuse to bark when the flock is in danger.

The magazine’s editors and writers are not totally uninformed. They are aware that Christian leaders are required to “contend for the faith,” standing upon the inspired, infallible, inerrant, and indispensable Word of God. Historically this has required Christian leaders to “rebuke,” “mark,” and “avoid” those who reject biblical truth but doing so according to Ephesians 4:15: “Speaking the truth in love.” It requires another action since they must “come out from among them.”

However, the CT crowd does not want to make the tough decision to take a stand against the very liberal religious crowd to whom they have pandered for decades.

The very loose CT crowd wants to present a soft, sophisticated, and scholarly persona to the world and that’s why they broke away from traditional orthodox Christians whom they perceived were not sensitive (enough) to social justice, ecumenism, climate change, etc. There is concern on the part of Evangelicals that Bible believers are not cognizant, concerned, or committed to social problems; however, astute Christians know that their main message is Christ and His death and resurrection. They remembered the debacle in the 1920s when the social gospel was preached and it destroyed leading denominations; therefore, concerned Christians wanted to steer away from that deadly mistake.

Christianity Today is more dedicated to “love” than truth which is the main reason they don’t have convictions and they can run with the hare and hunt with the hound. They seek peace at all costs and with that attitude, truth is always the casualty. Consequently, CT devotees are fearful of strong personalities who know what they believe. Christians, according to the philosophy of CT, must never be perceived as definitive, strong, determined, confrontational—hence their hatred of these qualities even in Trump. Evangelicals speak and write about civility and usually practice it with unbelievers and fellow Evangelicals, but often are most unkind, unfair, and uncivil when dealing with Fundamentalists. After all, tolerance only goes so far!

Weak Evangelicals have proved to be what astute people knew they always were: a hodgepodge of theological lightweights (with a few heavyweights), philosophical cripples, and devotees of political correctness.

Compromising religious leaders said that they would remain in corrupt denominations and fight for truth; well, they stayed in but they refused to fight. New Evangelicals are lovers, not fighters, and they don’t understand that principled people love truth enough to fight for it. Most Evangelical leaders will not fight unbelief and corruption but they gladly fight committed Christians over anything—even their support of Trump! As a Christian virtue, love is greater than faith and hope (1 Corinthians 13:13), but it is not greater than truth!

Long ago, Evangelicals at Christianity Today digressed, departed, and deserted biblical Christianity and with this unfair, untrue, and unprovoked attack on President Trump they have also deserted common sense when he has done more for unborn babies, a strong judiciary, and a strong economy than any other president.

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

Graham and Falwell made it a practice to never be alone with a woman who was not a relative. In that respect, they were right on target. No doubt, they practiced that for the same reason I have always done so: because none of us are 100% reliable until we are dead and because of the appearance of wrongdoing. We are not to give any person a reason to suspect or accuse us of evil. Failing to reach perfection is no excuse for not being blameless. Of course, being blameless is not the same as being perfect.

John Bunyan was one of the most courageous and principled men in history. In the 17th century, he told the king of England that he did not have the authority to stop him from preaching the Gospel! For that conviction, he spent over 12 years in prison. The Bunyan family lived from the support of fellow church members while John was in prison. John earned additional funds from the sale of shoe laces he made in prison.

Bunyan’s eldest daughter Mary was blind and she came to visit him in prison and pled with him “Come home daddy. Momma’s sick and we need you.” Mary would reach for her father’s eyes and wipe away his tears and whenever Mary left his cell and walked down the corridor feeling her way along the damp walls, John said that it was as if someone was pulling the flesh from his bones. Mary died while John was in prison. He could have gone home at any time if he promised to stop preaching but John told the judge that he would preach until the moss grew on his eyelids. That is character, courage, and convictions.

But John was wrong in dealing with women.

After John’s release from prison, he became pastor of the dissident church in Bedford with such unusual success that the church started other meetings in surrounding villages. One was in Gamlinghay and on Feb. 13, 1674, the church had a preaching meeting scheduled where Bunyan was to preach. A young lady named Agnes Beaumont had recently joined the Bedford church and wanted to attend the meeting in Gamlinghay.

Her father disliked Bunyan although Agnes’ brother belonged to his church. The only way Agnes could attend the meeting was to get a ride on someone’s horse, quiet common in that day; however, it was not acceptable for young ladies to ride with married men. John rode by her home in Epworth and her brother asked him if Agnes could ride with him to the meeting. John quickly refused twice then acquiesced and rode off with the 20-year-old lady behind him!

Even a modern television evangelist would not be so stupid. Well, not sure about that.

It was daylight and Agnes’ brother and wife road along with them but it was scandalous. The coup de grâce was two nights later when Agnes’ father died and she was accused of poisoning him by the family lawyer whose advances she had rejected earlier. It was charged that Agnes and John were sexually involved and John had provided the poison to kill her father. At the coroner’s inquest, the case was dismissed since it was obviously contrived by the attorney and a priest who had seen John and Agnes at the edge of town with her arms around John’s waist!

Agnes wrote that John spoke to her of biblical things during their ride to the next village but that did not make it right. John was wrong, careless for his reputation and for a single lady. It was a lapse in judgment by a good, great, even godly man.

God warns us about “the appearance of evil.” This is especially true of pastors. No pastor should ever be alone with an unrelated woman unless his office can be observed from the hall. He should never visit in the home of a lady without others present. The Bible tells Christian workers to go “two by two” when they visit.

There is a movement in America that has been gaining popularity in recent years whose only objective is to promote opposite sex friendship. I have a friend in a major Midwest city who has written a book promoting this dangerous and unbiblical teaching. I don’t question his or others’ motives but I sure question their wisdom and judgment. He could probably be identified as a “recovering Fundamentalist” but I suggest he and some others in the movement are loosey-goosey Evangelicals or simply professing Christians from mainline churches.

People in the Opposite Sex Relationship (OSR) movement often have meals with the opposite sex and even take road trips with them, utilizing separate motel rooms. The one verse dealing with the appearance of evil would prohibit that practice. Honesty, sincerity, purity, friendship, and all other virtues are not relevant. It is an open door for sexual immorality, breaking up families, and especially an open door for evil accusations.

I have many female friends that are important to my life; however, there is a difference in important and essential. I delight in talking with them but I would never consider having lunch alone with them or going on a road trip with them! First of all, why should I? Why would I want to exclude my wife? A wife or husband should provide all the emotional support that is needed and any other support is good but incidental.

No, Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell were right in their relationships with women and John Bunyan was wrong. Jesus said in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Countless sincere pastors are not wise and are making the same mistake that Bunyan made providing an open door for destruction of their ministry.

If I had done what Bunyan did, my wife would have guaranteed my early arrival at the Celestial City after a dinner of freshly picked mushrooms–picked by her!

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.

What sane person would disagree with such good advice? Note that the worthy advice was sent to everyone; however, Jim Wallis of Sojourners took exception. Jim thought Graham was racist and heartless. Jim parades as an evangelical, having discarded the rags of his fundamentalist past, but he is really a spokesman for the left. It is embarrassing to mention it but far left billionaire George Soros gave Jim’s nonprofit group $200,000! Jim denied it on a talk show but later had to backtrack and admitted the sullied but substantial gift.

Speaking of generous, Jim, who was Marxist in his youth (now, only a socialist), is paid $218,000 per year for his efforts in laying guilt on middle class whites for the condition and treatment of Blacks. He tries to identify with common people but the average American makes $50,000 per year; so, Jim, you ain’t one of us.

In reality Jim is the liberal white man’s Al Sharpton although Jim reads a teleprompter better than Al. Jim and his motley crew of leftist clergymen didn’t like Graham’s suggestion that maybe parents could do a better job in rearing their offspring. Duh, is that in question?

The Sojourners crowd thinks of Jesus as a skinny dude wearing sandals, hair to his shoulders, drinking a bottle of Perrier water while he signs up unregistered voters for Democrats. Informed people know that Christ came to die for our sins thereby changing the way we live and providing a home in Heaven rather than Hell. Christ was more concerned about people than problems. Social Gospelers like Jim are more concerned about the environment than they are about eternity. Just as the social gospel failed in the early 20th century so it is failing today.

Wallis and his sycophants responded to Graham’s advice by thrusting a rusty dagger into his back. Many famous leftist evangelicals signed onto the response and rebuke of Graham. The pompous blowhards mentioned Graham’s “outsized influence coupled with apparent ignorance.” There, isn’t that gracious and broadminded and really tolerant? They continued in their self-righteous rant with “We will not tolerate this type of flippant, patronizing commentary from faith leaders on critical issues that mean life and death for many in the body of Christ and in communities across America. We won’t tolerate it, even one more day.” Who do these guys think they are? They have as much power as a 40 watt bulb. What can they do but tolerate it and send out press releases and a few tweets.

In their open letter to Graham, they told him he had “sinned against” them and his statement had “hurt and influenced thousands.” He was accused of being “crude, insensitive, and paternalistic” and had “oversimplified” the situation. However, Graham had simply said that young people should be taught to obey police officers and never resist; that way they will stay alive. Sounds very simple and it would have been better for everyone (except the race baiters) if his advice had been followed in the Brown case.

Most youth are not the most astute thinkers but I remind them that when they have a problem with a cop, they must understand that he has a billy club, handcuffs, a couple of guns, mace, and a radio that can bring a swarm of cop cars into the neighborhood in minutes. I think Graham gave some practical advice.

Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are at the center of this discussion and when all relevant facts are acknowledged and one puts aside his terror of condemning black parents, then of course, they failed. It is not necessary to repeat the unsavory record of each young man. Nor is it necessary to prove that had they followed Graham’s advice, they would still be alive as would some protestors; and others would not have been bankrupted by “peaceful” protestors.

Wallis reaches way back for Jim Crow and for plantation owners for help in his effort to take down Graham. But those terrible episodes have nothing to do with young Black thugs who “feel their oats” and defy police instructions. If it turns out that the police are wrong then they can file a complaint and a whole bevy of civil rights attorneys will line up to take their cases and get justice–and a potful of money for everyone.

Graham’s critics brought up “mass incarceration and criminalization,” but they would have been wiser not to call attention to that. Permit me to elucidate. Homicide is the leading cause of deaths among black men in U.S. and 90% of the killers are also black. Between 1976 and 2005 Blacks committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. with only about 13% of the population. In cities under black rule (mayors and often police chiefs) such as Cleveland, Washington, New Orleans, Atlanta, Memphis, Newark, Richmond, Detroit, and Philadelphia corruption, crime, and chaos are common. Blacks often complain about the drug laws putting so many blacks in prison but Black politicians in DC led the effort to pass those laws. Blacks yell about “over-policing” yet that’s where the 911 calls come from!

The holy reverends really ran off the rails when they wrote: “Your blanket insistence on obedience in every situation exposes an ignorance of church history.” But Graham did not say or imply such a thing. There are times when Christians must disobey some unjust laws. I would not always obey without question if I’m stopped for giving gospel literature on the street, etc., but if an officer pulls his gun, I’ll back off, file a complaint, have my day in court and collect a hundred thousand from the government. And continue my Christian activity.

The epistle from the holy reverends even compared the protestors in Ferguson to principled Christians in the past who paid with their lives to stand true to the Gospel. That is a deceitful, disgraceful, and despicable comparison.

Wallis, in his youth, danced with glee when he heard that the U.S. had lost the war in Vietnam; and he and his parson pals can’t hold Graham’s coat with respect to work with the diseased, desperate, and depressed people of the world. Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse has been helping mostly black people around the world for 40 years and he has hugged and helped thousands of Blacks while Wallis shakes the hand of “oppressed” Blacks saying, “I feel your pain.”

And for Jim Wallis to accuse Graham–with his Samaritan’s Purse– of being unkind, uncaring, and unthoughtful is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath!

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!”

You can be sure it will be a cold, wet day on the Arabian Desert (and in that other place) before any U.S. mosque invites a Bible-believer to preach in their Friday service! In fact, they won’t permit a radical unbelieving “Christian” to preach for them. Ahh yes, sweet reciprocity.

Moreover, while I am filling my schedule maybe the ecumenical Episcopal leaders will also invite me, a Fundamentalist, to preach for them! Now that would show real tolerance, but then, even Episcopalians can’t show that much tolerance. After all, there must be some limits.

The National Cathedral is the place of numerous famous funerals: Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford; memorial services were held for presidents Harding, Coolidge, Truman and Nixon. Non presidents’ funerals include Eleanor Roosevelt, Neil Armstrong, and Nelson Mandela. So the Episcopal National Cathedral is more of a Funeral Home than a church. For sure, it is a dead or dying church.

At the interfaith service, Reverend Gina Campbell welcomed worshippers, declaring the Washington National Cathedral is “a place of prayer for all people.” Remembering her sensitivity training she prayed but not in the name of Christ. If I receive an invitation I could preach Nicodemus coming to Christ–the Seeker coming to the Savior for Salvation. Or maybe I could preach “A Christian Looks at Islam,” or “A Fundamentalist Looks at Episcopalians.” That would create more excitement in the National Cathedral than when one of the janitors unsuspectedly walked into a ladies restroom while one of the female “reverends” was there.

I suppose I should correct Gina’s heresy because she told the Muslims, “Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God.” First of all, her statement makes no sense. It is religious gibberish and she should know better. Secondly, Muslims worship Allah, the desert moon god as all historians know as well as readers of my book, ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse!

The incredible ecumenical worship service was organized by Gina Campbell and South African Ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool who praised religious freedom in America and lashed out against extremism which was commendable; however, non-Muslims are somewhat skeptical since Muslims have been given permission to be duplicitous, devious, and dishonest in the advancement of Islam. But some sincere folk will suggest that it is unfair to assume Muslim leader Ebrahim would lie to advance his religious cause. Maybe he is totally sincere. However, such thinking shows a person does not understand that ALL Muslims must seek to make the nation where he lives an Islamic state. So, if Ebrahim is a true Muslim, he will seek to advance Islam even to the point of lying. So the suspicion is not unfair, unreasonable, or unchristian.

The Ambassador’s motives are also called into question since the event was sponsored by himself, the cathedral, and several Muslim spiritual and advocacy groups: the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Public Affairs Council and Masjid Muhammad mosque in Northwest Washington. All these Muslim groups are linked, even joined at the hip, with terrorist organizations! They are all shrill and angry defenders of any Muslim activity, anti-Israel in the extreme, and promoters of terror–if it is Muslim terror.

To his credit the Muslim Ambassador asked for a sliver of light to be permitted in Saudi Arabia but that was in an interview, not the interfaith service. He suggested that Christians should be permitted to pray in Saudi mosques but we don’t want to pray there. We want Baptist Churches next to their mosques! In fact, as a non-Muslim, I can’t even visit the nation! Ah, yes sweet tolerance–but only in one direction.

If Ebrahim can arrange for me to preach at a mosque, no special arrangements need be made. We will sing some historic Christian songs such as “There is Power in the Blood,” “O How I Love Jesus,” and “Jesus is the Sweetest Name I Know.” Maybe close with “Just as I Am.” Then we will pray for the conversion of Muslims around the world; for Muslims to stop beheading journalists, women, and children; for bloody dictators in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to trust Christ and follow Him in believers’ baptism; for Hamas to stop its war against Israel; for butchers in many Muslim-dominated nations to stop mutilating little girls; for toleration in permitting Muslims to be converted to Christ; for Saudi to give me permission to start Trinity Baptist Church in Mecca; for all female Muslims to be treated equally with men; ad infinitum.

There was a backlash, you know, from “intolerant Christians” who thought it was not scriptural or prudent or acceptable for “Christians” to compromise with unbelievers. Franklin Graham was very forthright and courageous when he wrote: “It’s sad to see a church open its doors to the worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible who sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to earth to save us from our sins. Jesus was clear when He said, ‘I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’ (John 14:6).”

I have had disagreements with Franklin and his father’s ecumenical evangelism but that is a fuss among family members. I greatly appreciate and respect his stand on the religious fiasco at the National Cathedral and other courageous positions on controversial issues.

Just before the Muslims started to pray, a lady caused some to have an apologetic fit when she stood up, pointed to the cross and shouted, “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 escorted out of the church.

All genuine Christians who are members of the National Cathedral, should demand the resignation of all senior staff and church officers who permitted such an event.

Does this incident say something about the strange day in which we live? We have Muslims worshipping in a Christian church and a lady is castigated as a hater for saying, “Christ is Lord” and escorted out of the church for her protest!

I wonder what Christ would do! No, I know what Christ would do. He would use a whip again to drive the hypocrites out of the house of God.

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!”

Fuller boasts over 4,500 students from over 67 countries and 108 denominations so their loosy-goosey theological, political, and social positions are understandable as well as untenable and unscriptural.

The Evangelicals who founded the school did not like the Fundamentalists’ doctrine of separation, especially ecclesiastical separation. They did not agree with the Apostle Paul’s command to “come out from among them” because they wanted to stay in their denominations and maintain their perks, power, and positions. After all, they reasoned, one can carry personal and doctrinal purity just so far. They also did not want to pay the price of being shunned, slandered, and sacked by their churches. Many religious leaders had moved up in this world and enjoyed the “good life.” So they had to be careful, you know. One must be practical.

They said that they would remain in corrupt denominations and fight; well, they stayed in but they refused to fight. New Evangelicals are lovers not fighters and they don’t understand that true lovers love truth enough to fight for it. Most Evangelical leaders will not fight unbelief and corruption but they gladly fight Fundamentalists!

Another reason for breaking with Fundamentalists was the perceived need for social involvement. Most people would think that the debacle of the 1920s and 1930s with the infiltration of the social gospel into mainline churches would be enough evidence to make anyone eschew such unscriptural folly.

Most Evangelical leaders cannot or will not delineate between an individual Christian’s responsibility to society and a church’s responsibility. Therefore, modern Evangelicals are in hot pursuit of the social gospel as seen in many of the megachurches and emergent churches which are often led by playboy preachers in faded blue jeans, tee shirts, spiked hair, and gold chains. Usually with a BMW or Mercedes parked out front. And the television charlatan tools around town in a Rolls Royce!

The third leg to the Evangelical stool is their desire for a passionate love affair with theological liberals. So there was an understanding between them: unbelieving liberal preachers would overlook the unfortunate culture of these erstwhile Fundamentalists and these Fundamentalists would overlook the radical unbelief of the liberal clergy–people who were no more Christian than an emaciated alley cat. In fact, at least the cat was not a hypocrite, professing to believe the truth while all the time hating it. As one Evangelical confessed to this understanding between New Evangelicals and Leftist Liberals: we will call you “brother” if you will call us “scholar.” So they climbed into bed with each other and it is a sorry, sordid, sinful affair. And it is an affair.

All the above always results from a weak view of Scripture. From their beginning, the New Evangelicals, Christianity Today, and Fuller Seminary were weak on inerrancy. Inerrancy means there are no errors in the Bible while infallible means that errors are impossible. Harold Lindsell declared in The Battle for the Bible that “The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective.” Lindsell presciently suggested in 1976 that caving on the doctrine of the inerrancy was “the thread that would unravel the church.” He was right on target as we watch this take place daily.

The ordained weasels among us have twisted inerrancy to mean that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally but even a fool knows that there are many metaphors, similes, and hyperboles in the Scripture. Proper hermeneutics will take care of that. No, inerrancy simply means, “without error.” As the Belgic Confession states, with the canonical books “there can be no quarrel at all.” The Bible is simply, “true.”

Billy Graham gave this heresy impetus when he declared in 1986, “I personally never use the word ‘inerrancy.’ I almost wish the word had never been used. I don’t think its [sic] a necessary word.” What a tragedy, but then Graham has gone through life having dinner with radical unbelievers and Evangelicals and throwing Fundamentalists a few crumbs now and then. During his meetings they have been relegated to sit in the back of the auditorium, metaphorically speaking.

Those Christians interested in obeying the Bible refused to “hook up” with the unbelieving crowd for any reason. I gladly associate with that principled crowd!

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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