Each of the three Popes excommunicated the others.

The Church managed to survive that fiasco, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Reformation, but will it survive the global sex scandal and the machinations of Pope Francis?

In recent days, it was revealed that Francis has been up to some hanky-panky when it was discovered that he “liked” a seminude model’s picture on Instagram. The Vatican announced today that it has launched a probe into the nudie caper.

It seems the Pope keeps stepping in it almost weekly. Maybe he believes any publicity is good publicity.

Many Roman Catholics think Pope Francis is a loose cannon that has broken away from its mounting and constitutes a danger to the whole Church as it shoots in all directions. Headlines in the Daily Mail blared, “Vatican at War!” Even cardinals are running away from his latest folly. His latest shot was an endorsement of civil marriages for the LGBTQ crowd, thinking that such action would help him win a global popularity contest.

And stop the bleeding of money and members or, more crudely, nickels, and noses.

The Pope’s goal is to bring us all together in an attempt to undo the sixteenth-century Reformation and have a world church supporting a world government and world economy.

Was the Reformation a mistake, or was it one of the most significant events in world history?

Most educated people don’t have a firm grasp on the world’s religious, political, economic, and social conditions in the Middle Ages. Nor do they know what has been the dream, some say nightmare, of globalists—a united worldwide church. After all, who will disagree with everyone getting along? Of course, no one will, but there is much difference in getting along with people and uniting with those with whom you have vast differences.

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has always considered Protestants as “separated brethren” even though the Roman Church declared for hundreds of years that there was no salvation outside the RCC. They always invite non-Catholics back into the fold with the understanding that the Vatican will still run things, and their peculiar doctrines and practices will prevail. Catholic officials are willing to overlook minor theological disputes and ignore them as a condition of bringing the breakaway denominations “back home.”

As long as they bring their checkbooks and don’t try to run things.

While Rome is willing to concede on minor differences, they will not concede on the veneration of Mary or the mass. During the 18th century in France, ordinary Frenchmen ridiculed the Roman Catholic Church (their national church) for their teaching of turning a piece of bread into God. However, Rome will not concede on the mass.

Get ready, folks, the world church is being formed with headquarters in Rome, but here is one Bible-believer who will never “return to Rome” since my crowd was never in her! Independent churches were publicly baptizing converts in huge tubs throughout Germany, Switzerland, and other European nations long before the Reformation. I will stay independent (as were all original churches) as a hog on ice and free as an eagle until shrimp learn to whistle and pigs learn to fly.

An all-inclusive, world church is not going back to the Bible but back to bondage!

According to LifeSiteNews of August 22, 2019, a multi-faith committee was announced “to implement the ‘Human Fraternity’ document signed by Pope Francis and a Grand Imam in February that stated, among other things, that a ‘pluralism and diversity, of religions, is willed by God.’”

But then, the only way we can know the will of God is what is revealed in His Word. The Bible does not endorse a world church but a definite coming out from among them. Not unity but separation. The Bible never teaches denominationalism or world church, but each local church is to be a group of simple, sincere, and scholarly Christians who meet to sing, pray, and preach without any interference from any government or denominational authority.

The Pope has no more biblical authority than an ordinary pastor or priest in an obscure village.

Francis is aware that his biggest problem in constructing the world church will be Muslims who are accustomed to running everything, including the guillotine. Also, the Jews have been around longer than anyone has, so they will not be quick to respond to this theological courtship or, more correctly, seduction. Some Jews even believe all non-Jews are of a different and inferior species! How will that play in Rome? Or Tehran?

So, headlines yell, “Vatican issues a happy Ramadan to all ‘Muslim brothers and sisters’”; however, traditional Muslims do not consider any non-Muslims as spiritually related. The Koran often identifies all non-Muslims as “polytheists,” “unbelievers,” “infidels,” etc., with which Muslims are not to be friendly. And for sure not to cooperate with them.

The Pope asserted, “We Muslims and Christians are called to open ourselves to others, knowing and recognizing them as brothers and sisters…. this way, we can tear down walls raised out of fear and ignorance and seek together to build bridges of friendship that are fundamental for the good of all humanity.”

When Reformers broke with Rome in the 16th century, they did not do so out of fear or ignorance but because of overwhelming convictions and intelligence. The Bible had been translated and was now available to everyone, and it was obvious that what Catholic leaders were teaching was not found in its pages. The Bible reader had been intimidated and harassed and had his pockets picked for centuries to construct massive cathedrals all over Europe.

With the translated Bible, they discovered that the Bible said nothing about Popes, archbishops, cardinals, holy water, rosary beads, hail Mary, the immaculate conception, lent, the sign of the cross, vestments, relics, statues, purgatory, limbo, penance, confession to a priest, elevation of Mary, indulgences, pilgrimages, etc.

When one gets rid of all that, he almost ends up with an independent Bible or Baptist Church!

The average Christian finally read in the newly translated Bibles that independent churches were to be filled with simple and sincere people, where someone read the Bible, another prayed. Then the preacher (not a priest) delivered a sermon followed by the singing of hymns. No liturgy, no ceremony, no mass, no richly dressed preachers. The Europeans could find very little in the Bible that reflected what they had experienced for a lifetime in their vast cathedrals.

While Pope Francis spoke of “brothers and sisters” and friendship, ordinary Christians were chaffing under sharia in Muslim nations. Many were being persecuted as Francis gushed platitudes to appease and impress Muslim fanatics. He did not demand religious freedom or even tolerance on the part of Muslims in the Middle East nations.

Francis demands that Protestants forget about the doctrines and practices that precipitated the Reformation but does not require or even suggest that Muslim leaders must make major concessions with Koranic commands that deal with hating and killing Jews and Christians or even making friends with them. No demands that female sexual mutilation is barbarity and must be stopped; no demand that honor killings are beastly; no requirements that killing any Muslim if he or she converts to Christ is criminal; and no demand for Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia to permit Christian churches (not one in the whole nation). It seems Francis is quiet about the absurd and vile teachings of Islam.

But then, Francis is a bridge-builder; however, here is one dude who will never cross that bridge.

Pope Francis is a hypocrite who is more interested in public relations than helping the hurting and Gospel-deprived people under Islamic rule. But how can he give something he probably doesn’t have?

The Pope shamelessly speaks of building bridges rather than a hated wall to keep out unwanted immigrants while he lives behind a massive wall. Did I mention that Francis is a hypocrite?

But the Pope keeps trying. He is the only person in Europe who can give an order and see it carried out by non-thinking zealots. Only the Pope can break the barriers and usher in the World Church.

For sure, I’m not going to be a part of his world church, not even if I am promised the Pope’s tiara, the keys to his Popemobile, and the combination of the Vatican vault.

I had to struggle with the combination to the vault.

(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 being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! The eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

Recently a PAC ran a political ad showing Donald Trump’s wife nude with the caption, “Meet Melania Trump, your next First Lady.” The text continues, “Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” Cruz or his people had no connection with the ad since the law prohibits any association with PACs. My concern today is not the political decision by the PAC that ran the ad but the personal decision to pose nude.

My critics will charge, as they often do, that Christians believe that the body is inherently evil but that is pure applesauce! The body is the creation of God as the Psalmist wrote, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” Furthermore, such critics have no knowledge of the Song of Solomon, a very sexual book. However, the body is, at least for Christians, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. It is a sin to mistreat the body with illegal drugs, tobacco, alcohol, overeating, overworking, not resting, and exposing the body to those who have no right to see it. It is to be enjoyed only by a spouse–of the opposite sex. Christians should be concerned with dress, deportment, decorum, and decency.

Up front, I know I am in the minority and will be portrayed as a Neanderthal (but then, we now know that they were totally human) or a prude. I plead guilty. The nude photo (and there are more photos of her practically nude) was not made of some giddy, stupid teenager looking for attention. They were made of Melania Trump sixteen years ago when she was a model and Trump’s girlfriend. The fact she was a model or Trump’s girlfriend makes no difference in whether it was right or wrong.

One defender said that “we are confronted with the opinion that a woman who expresses herself with her body is not to be taken seriously, and is somehow less or not good enough.” Yes, it does show that she is less–less in personal attributes that matter. Any woman (or man) who exposes her/his body has a problem with little character, convictions, and much crassness. The defender went on to say “And somehow, the fact that she has a body — and showed it — makes her not worthy of respect, according to the folks behind the ad.” Yes, I think that sums it up. Such a person does not deserve respect because she has no self-respect. The reality that she is beautiful, speaks five languages, has a jewelry line, can sting three sentences in a row that makes sense, and has a son is irrelevant.

I would have been horrified if my future wife had posed like that and would have broken our engagement. If she had been my adult daughter I would have broken fellowship with her although still loving her. A husband is responsible for his wife and daughters’ actions. Are you ready for this? They are accountable to him and once a daughter is married the accountability transfers to her husband!

Since I am in deep, deep water I might as well go deeper. I have been to Rome and Greece many times and have seen their famous paintings and sculptures and I think many of them are scandalous, salacious, and even slutty. I’m aware that it is supposed to make a difference because it is “great” art, even religious art but that is a silly, shallow, and shameful defense.

Here’s the bottom line: it is wrong to display one’s body to satisfy anyone–except a spouse. Often it is done by teens to get attention and that often comes back to bite them in their derrière a few years later. Then, they usually complain about an invasion of privacy! Simple answer to that: keep your private parts private except for your spouse.

Celebrities who whine about leaked nude photos are hypocrites as well as sluts. They never should have posed nude for the camera.

At a gallery of nude photos and sculptures all the spectators must be fully clothed as they look at totally naked bodies! Would it be acceptable if all the spectators were nude like the art? Why not?

I am told that this position would hurt Christian artists but if their work harms others, they should refuse to produce that kind of “art.” Why should Christian art be held to a lower standard than the Christian himself? I am told that artists, maybe most artists, do not intend to be salacious but it doesn’t matter as to the artist’s intent if the art causes others to lust. The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:13 “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”

God gives some directions in this matter and obeying Him will keep us from sin, shame, and scandal.

Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (approx. 20 B.C.-40 A.D.) expressed the Hebrew view of nudity: “neither is it right for men to mix with women when they have laid aside their garments, but each of the sexes ought to avoid the sight of the other when they are naked, in accordance with the promptings of nature.” The Jews were right.

The Bible clearly teaches that the body is not inherently sinful but it does teach that it is sinful to publically display it. When Adam and Eve were sinless, they were not concerned with being nude but were ashamed immediately following the Fall. God then clothed them with animal skins to cover their nakedness, an example of the shedding of blood being necessary to cover sins.

In Exodus 28, God gave specific instructions how the high priest was to dress. Verse 42 commands, “And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach.” Pagan priests were often naked when sacrificing to Bacchus but God demanded a much higher standard: purity and decency. So men are to be concerned with exposing their body.

In I Tim. 2:9, Paul tells women to wear “modest apparel” which was the stola, a long loose robe worn by women in ancient Rome and Greece. It was a long piece of cloth sewed up on both sides, leaving room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet in front and back, and was girded with the zona (also segment) round the body, just under the breasts. It was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the bottom up above the knee, so as to display a part of the thigh. These were termed fainomhridev, or showers (to look at) the thigh; but it was, in general, only young girls or immodest women who wore them that way.

I believe that Timothy passage holds true today. Only immodest (or very foolish, silly girls) expose themselves in any generation.

When Christ healed the wild man by casting out his demons in Mark 5, the demonic man stopped running around naked, stopped cutting himself, and put on some clothes and sat still listening to Jesus. This passage reminds us that when people get right with God they will have nothing to do with demons; will not cut, pierce, or abuse their flesh; will listen to Christ; and will be modestly dressed.

Someone should tell the Trumps that money might buy the White House but not class or character or convictions. If I were the Trumps’ pastor I would tell her to keep her clothes on–except in the bedroom–or face church discipline!

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