Category Archives: MATTERS OF MORALITY

Believers Need To Understand There Is No Common Ground Here

I do not want to explain myself the way I normally do — not in this post.  I simply do not trust myself to talk right now.  I am too angry and too grieved over what is happening in this nation today.  We are divided, and a house divided cannot stand.  Unfortunately, I do not see how we can mend this rift.  I hear people saying we have to try to understand the other side so we can find common ground and then come together on that common ground, but I do not see any common ground between us –not any more.  There was a time, when this was still about politics, but this is no longer about politics, or Left vs Right.  No, this has become about lawless vs lawful, good vs evil, and the two do not have any common ground.  Scripture is quite clear on this:

John 1:5-9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

A person is either in and of the light, or in and of the darkness, and those who are in and of the darkness turn Truth upside down and inside out.  They:

Isaiah 5:20-21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who [a]substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who [b]substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!

I look around and I see people demanding that I believe a woman who makes charges without witnesses to support her charges, and that I condemn a man who has four witnesses refuting her claims.  This is lawlessness.  Scripture says:

2 Corinthians 13:1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Examine Yourselves

13 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every [a]fact [b]is to be confirmed by the [c]testimony of two or three witnesses.

Therefore, Scripture tells me that those people demanding that I condemn Judge Kavanaugh and believe his accuser are lawless, and Scripture defines lawlessness as evil.  How do I — as a believer — find common ground with evil?  If I compromise with evil, I join myself to evil, and since evil is not and cannot be a part of the Lord, I would be alienating myself from my Savior.

But how did we — a Christian nation — get to this point?  I keep asking myself this question, but I know the answer: we got here the exact same way Israel got to the point where it was twice destroyed — first the Northern Tribes, and then the Southern.  To put it simply, we turned away from the source of all our blessings, from the very anchor of our society and foundation of our liberty — the One True Living God!

I suddenly find myself being persecuted simply because I refuse to renounce the Truth.  Honestly, I pray that you, dear reader, are experiencing the same persecution, because there is affirmation in that persecution.  If you stand for what is right and just, if you refuse to become lawless and are attacked because of it, then know that you are standing with The Logos, The Word.  This means you are in the Logos and the Logos is in you, and the world hates you because of it:

John 15:18-21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Disciples’ Relation to the World

18 “If the world hates you, [a]you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.

Matthew 10:22  New American Standard Bible (NASB)

22 You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Therefore, if you are hated because you will not join the rest of the world in this growing lawlessness, or because you will not replace right with wrong, good with evil, then know that the world hates you because you do not belong to the world.  You are from above.  But also know that you and I are called to endure to the end.  This means we must not back away from this fight, we just have to fight the way the Scriptures command us to fight.  Put on the full armor of the Lord, and speak the Gospel: boldly and purely and without fear.  Witness to the world through your testimony and your actions, and do so with an agape love for all.  And remember, no matter what:

Romans 12:17-21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. [a]Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but [b]leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

1 Peter 3:9-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but [a]giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. 10 For,

The one who desires life, to love and see good days,
Must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit.
11 He must turn away from evil and do good;
He must seek peace and pursue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous,
And His ears attend to their prayer,
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

13 Who is [b]there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you [c]are blessed. And do not fear their[d]intimidation, and do not be troubled, 15 but [e]sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a [f]defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and [g]reverence;16 [h]and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

MATTERS OF MORALITY: The Slippery Slope of Compromise

In my last post, I wrote about the dangers of the slippery slope.  In this post, I propose to address a specific practice that leads to the slippery slope of moral decay.  As with my last post, I would like to start by referencing Glenn Beck.  Once again, I would like to stress that, while I believe Mr. Beck is one of the few truly sincere voices on talk radio, I have found myself disagreeing with him a great deal.  In this particular case, the issue is ‘compromise.’  For some time now, Mr. Beck has been advocating for his audience to seek common ground with those who are opposed to their values.  According to his own words, Mr. Beck believes that Americans have more in common than we know — namely our support for the U.S. Constitution.  Unfortunately, I think Mr. Beck’s religious beliefs have clouded his mind.  One need do nothing more than listen to the people Beck seeks to make peace with to know they do not support the U.S. Constitution.  In fact, many of them have openly stated their desire to do away with it.  And yet, Mr. Beck continues to urge his audience to seek common ground with and make peace with these people.  Now, there is nothing wrong with compromise — so long as it is on how one achieves a goal and not on matters of right and wrong.  But that is the problem with Mr. Beck.  He is advocating compromise on matters of right and wrong, and that leads directly to the slippery slope of moral and social decay.

I suppose a few examples are in order.  The first example I can think of is the debate over whether or not people should boycott companies such as the NFL and Nike for their support of anti-American movements.  Here, Mr. Beck defends the NFL and Nike based on the argument that they are private companies and have a right to do whatever they wish with their property.  Beck has repeatedly asserted that he does not support the idea of boycotts and has offered many explanations for why he has no problem continuing to do business with companies that attack the beliefs he claims are his core values.  Hollywood is another example.  Beck says to boycott Hollywood would mean we could never see another movie, so he isn’t going to do it.  This is what I mean by Mr. Beck’s appeal for compromise when it comes to boycotting, and he bases his argument in an appeal to the Constitution and property rights.

Another example is Mr. Beck’s defense of the media.  He has made many impassioned arguments defending the ‘right’ of the media to say and do anything it wants — even to the point of destroying their political opponents.  According to Beck, this is what the Founders wanted when they wrote the First Amendment: defense of any and all speech — especially that with which we disagree.  As a result, Mr. Beck has strenuously defended the media’s right to lie to the public, even when it endangers the continued existence of the nation.  Again, Mr. Beck has advocated a compromise between right and wrong and based it on his supposed support for the Constitutional protection of free speech.

Finally, a third example is found in Mr. Beck’s plea to for his audience to stop calling evil by its name.  In this case, Mr. Beck has told his audience that the people on each side of our national divide are equally good, and have common values.  He has said that we must stop calling each other evil or wicked and reach out in conciliatory terms to make peace with each other.  Unfortunately, this is a clear compromise on right and wrong.  In fact, it is one of the clearest examples of moral compromise on talk radio today.  This time, Mr. Beck bases his appeal for compromise on Scripture and his supposed Christian faith.

[For the record: I have listened to Beck almost daily for the last 15+ years.  I have heard his arguments many times.  I have not committed straw man here; I have faithfully described Mr. Beck’s positions as he has stated them on the radio — many times.]

OK, now that we have three examples of Mr. Beck advocating compromise, let’s take a closer look at them.  The goal here is to determine whether or not each of these examples seeks a common goal achievable without compromising values, or does compromise in these areas require compromise of what is right and wrong.  We will start with the issue of boycotting.

The first example is the notion that we should not boycott a company that attacks our values.  Honestly, I do not understand Mr. Beck’s argument here.  He defends a company’s right to do whatever it wants based on private property rights, but then denies the legitimacy of boycotting that company even though a boycott is based in true Natural Rights: that of freedom of association and freedom to contract.  First, a corporation does not have a ‘right’ to make whatever political statement it wishes — especially when it can be reasonably expected to affect the company’s stock value.  This is because the company has a fiduciary duty to all stock holders: both those who agree with the political statement and especially those who do not.  To use a person’s money for an agenda with which they do not agree morally is lawlessness.  To cost a person financial loss by using their money to further that agenda is also lawlessness.  Just as it is lawless for a company that exists only because of the permission of a society to deliberately attack that society is also lawlessness.  But worse, to urge those who seek to act lawfully to ignore this lawlessness and continue to do business with such companies is to urge those people to abandon righteousness for lawlessness.  In Scriptural terms, by arguing against boycotts as a means to punish a company’s lawlessness, Mr. Beck is urging people to become un-equally yoked:*

2 Corinthians 6:14-16  New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Do not be [a]bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with [b]Belial, or [c]what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,

If we do not use whatever lawful means are available to us to correct lawlessness and wrong doing in our society, we send the message that lawlessness and wrongdoing is acceptable.  Boycotting a company that acts lawlessly is one such means, and the Left has repeatedly demonstrated that it can be effective.  So why urge people not to boycott?  More than that, why justify doing nothing in response to lawlessness?  I suspect the true answer is that we do not want to deprive ourselves of the product these companies produce, so we are willing to compromise on a matter of right and wrong instead of giving up personal comforts.  This is the first step down the slippery slope.

Now let’s look at the press/media.  Do we have an un-limited right to free speech?  Well, can you yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater?  The answer is no.  Do you have a right to advocate violence or the destruction of property?  No, that is also against the law.  Do you have a right to advocate the killing of others, especially public officials?  Again, no, that is against the law.  I could go on, but I shouldn’t have to do so.  By now, it should be obvious that one cannot claim a right to do something that is illegal for an individual by claiming to be the press.  Well, in recent years, the American press has called for violence, the destruction of property, murder and even political assassination.  So why would anyone defend them based on the First Amendment when the things they are publishing are clearly not protected by the First Amendment?  This extends to political attacks.  If you or I slander or liable someone and it causes them real, tangible harm, we can be sued.  This is based in our Natural and Constitutional rights.  Yet, by some twisting of logic, the Courts have said this protection does not extend to a public servant.  Why?  Do they somehow lose their rights when they are elected?  Or is the media just immune from the same laws that would apply to an individual doing what they do?  No, the truth is that this mess with the media has been created by a slide down the slippery slope from the lawful to the lawless.  So, to defend anything the media says or does based on the First Amendment is to compromise on matters of right and wrong, and it quickly leads to lawlessness — especially when the press becomes an openly hostile enemy of the very society that allows it to exist (as for God’s Word on slander and liable, I would strongly suggest the article below.  It is one of God’s most stringent no-no’s**).

Finally, we have the matter of whether or not we should refrain from pointing out that people are doing evil just for the sake of making them more willing to talk civilly with us.  I sort of like this meme, both because I think it nails the current condition of the Church, but also because it makes the point upon which I am about to expand:

Judgmental John

Calling people to repent is the same thing as telling them to stop doing evil — pure and simple.  But Mr. Beck is not alone in urging others not to call each other evil.  You know what?  I just can’t do that — not when they are clearly doing evil.  For example.  A great many people in our society are advocating for Socialism.  Well, the Lord sees that as theft, and the Lord has a commandment against stealing.  So how — or better yet — why would I want to make thieves feel more comfortable in their lawlessness?  Did Jesus seek to make the Pharisees comfortable in their sin so they would be more willing to listen to and agree with Him?  No, in fact, I think He called them sons of Satan!  Well, the same principle applies to those people calling for the theft of other people’s property.  But what of the poor, you ask? Aren’t believers supposed to help the poor?  Once more, I have a cute little meme that answers that question rather pointedly:

Jesus on Socialism

(The same principle applies to voting for the government to take from the rich and give to the poor.  Christ did not tell people to take the rich young man’s possessions and give them to the poor; He told the rich young man to sell them and give to the poor, himself.  Otherwise, it is not charity, it is theft.)

This same principle applies to those who advocate for abortion.  Abortion is murder — period!  Why would a righteous person ever want to refrain from calling it for what it is?  Why would we not want to call the people who advocate for it murderers?  If they are supporting murder and you fail to warn them of that, then you are not showing them an agape love. What’s more, Scripture warns that, if you see danger and fail to warn (Spiritual or physical), then the blood of the lost will be on your hands.  But how can we warn people they are doing evil if we are not supposed to point out that they are doing evil?

The point here is simple: a righteous person (or a person who seeks to be righteous) must never compromise on matters of right and wrong.  This means you can either stand on the side of right, or you stand on the side of wrong. If you do not choose, then you automatically place yourself on the side of wrong.  That’s just how it works.  Yet, for the sake of finding “common ground,” many would say we have to stop calling lawlessness by its name.  I’m sorry, but I cannot do that.  If I did, I would be placing myself squarely on the wrong side of Isaiah 5:20-23:

Isaiah 5:20-23

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who [n]substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who [o]substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!
22 Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine
And valiant men in mixing strong drink,
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away the [p]rights of the ones who are in the right!

God has two sets of Law: Natural and Revealed (Romans 1 and 2).  Both sets of Law establish right from wrong.  This is the source of what we call morality.  The Laws governing morality are universal and eternal: they apply equally to all, for all time.  If society starts to compromise on these Laws, then it starts down the slippery slop of decay.  That decay is the result of the lawlessness that results from moral compromise.  It starts by accepting that a girl should be able to wear a mini skirt around adolescent boys.  Then we accept the notion that teenagers need to be trusted by themselves.  Afterward, we accept the notion that we need to teach sex education and provide condoms because….  Well, you know: “They’re going to do it anyhow, so…”  Until, finally, we are telling society it needs to pay to help all the un-wed teenage mothers raise their children — not to mention the treatment of STD’s and all the other social problems created by the children who get into trouble because they did not have a responsible father figure in their lives.  You see, the whole process is a series of “not calling things for what they are.”  In this particular case, the steps toward sexual immorality in our society were based on the removal of any and all personal responsibility for the consequences of sexual immorality.  And this is just one example of how the slide down the slippery slope works, and it all starts with a little compromise on right and wrong.

The truth is, when it comes to matters of right and wrong, everything is black and white.  There is no grey.  If you think you see grey, that is a sure sign that you are on the wrong side of right.

It’s just that most of us do not want to suffer the personal consequences of doing the right thing.  It’s far easier to just tell others they are doing wrong than to actually live by example, but then, this is exactly what Christ calls His disciples to do: live by example.  It is what is meant by being a light to the world.

 

ADDITIONAL READING:

* Working with Nonbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14–18)

**What does the Bible say about slander?

 

 

MATTERS OF MORALITY: The Slippery Slope

I listen to Glenn Beck.  I find myself agreeing with him less and less every day, but I continue to listen because I have come to believe that — whether or not he is correct — he is sincere in what he claims to believe and he does not try to deceive his audience.  For me, this is a refreshingly valuable commodity in our current culture.  However, Mr. Beck has been heading down a road I find quite troubling.  For years now, Mr. Beck has been coming to his audience saying, “This is it!  I’ve finally found the answer!  This is what has been happening: the cause of all our troubles.”  First, it was ‘Liberalism.’  Then it was the ‘Liberal/Progressive‘ movement.  Now it is ‘Post-Modernism‘ and ‘Moral Relativism.’  I’ll give Mr. Beck this much: he seeks answers, and he is not afraid to put in a lot of hard work in the process.  But I grieve for him that he is ‘ever learning, yet never understanding.’  You see, like the majority of those who seek to explain this world without taking God’s Word into account, all Mr. beck is doing is addressing the manifestation of a Spiritual cause.  Consequently, Mr. Beck looks for worldly solutions to a Spiritual problem.  It is why he always fails to understand.  It is why, until the Lord opened my eyes, I always failed to understand.  It’s all about the slippery slope of Spiritual and moral decay.

Simply put, the fallacy of ‘slippery slope‘ happens when a person makes a very unlikely claim that action A will lead to action B which will lead to action C (and so on).  A perfect example that has caused a great deal of anger in our current world would be the claims of the ‘climate change‘ advocates.  They claim that human activity will lead to dramatic climate change which will then lead to massive depopulation and extinction events.  If these folks were to make more believable claims, then their arguments might be sound.  However, as they stand now, they are advancing a fallacy (i.e. a mistake in logic or bad/flawed argument — or, in this case, ‘bad science’).  We know the ‘climate change‘ advocates are wrong because, before now, they had said we’d all be dead from over heating, and before that, we’d be dead from a new ice age.  None of their predictions ever happen because they exaggerate, and that is what makes their warnings fallacious.  In this case, they commit slippery slope.

But there is a problem with slippery slope, and that is that it is not always a fallacy — even when the claims seem to be unbelievable to the majority of people.  In this case, I would refer to Scripture for an example.  God warned the Israelites not to associate with the Canaanites because, if they did, the Canaanites would lead the Israelites into idolatry and ruin (to be more specific, the warning was against associating with people who worshiped Baal, but as Baal was the god of Canaan…).  Now, remember, the Israelites were real people, so we must imagine how this warning would have sounded to them.  If we were told that we would be lead away from God and into ruin because we mixed ourselves with Muslims, how do you think this would go over in our society today?  Well, the Israelites were proud of their faith, and of being the ‘chosen people,’ so you can imagine that the idea they could be lead away from God by the likes of the Canaanites would most likely have been met with even greater indignation.  And yet, this is exactly what Scripture tells us happened:

Numbers 25:1-3  New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Sin of Peor

25 While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel joined themselves to [a]Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry against Israel.

Numbers 31:15-16  New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15 And Moses said to them, “Have you [a]spared all the women? 16 Behold, these [b]caused the sons of Israel, through the [c]counsel of Balaam, to [d]trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord.

God warned His people, through His prophet, Moses, that association with those who worship Baal would lead Israel astray, but Israel did not listen.  God’s warning was about slippery slope: not the fallacious kind, but the real kind, the kind where one thing does lead to another and then another.  We known this because Jesus later says that this is exactly what the people of Israel did in addressing the Church at Pergamum:

Revelation 2:12-17  New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Message to Pergamum

12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write:

The One who has the sharp two-edged sword says this:

…14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. 15 So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

Notice that Christ singles out the remnant of those who teach false gods which are still within the body of the Church, and that He then makes it clear these people will not be turned to Him, but will turn people away from Christ and toward their false god(s).  Finally, Christ warns that if the Church does not repent (change their ways and go in the opposite direction), He will come and make war with them.  This is the true slippery slope: if the Church compromises with those who teach falsehood (i.e. lawlessness), the lawless will lead the righteous astray and, eventually, God will destroy them all.

Now let us consider the slippery slope in our current society.  In 1962-64, we officially kicked God out of our public square, which included our schools.  From that point, the majority of indicators sociologists use to measure the morality of a society spiked.  Crime rates increased.  Teenage pregnancies increased.  STD’s rates increased.  Divorces and un-wed households increased.  Scholastic test scores decreased.  Civility decreased.  In short, every measure of morality showed a marked decline in the moral character of our society — just as God warned the Israelites it would when He warned them against associating with the Canaanites!

Our founding fathers were very clear about the connection between morality and liberty.  They forcefully asserted that liberty does not and cannot exist without morality, and morality does not and cannot exist without religion:

In the Founders’ Words: The Connection between God, Liberty and the Founding of America

In the Founders’ Words: the Essential Role of Religion in Public and Civic Life

There is a simple connection to all of this.  If a society loses its belief in God, then it loses its common morality.  This opens the door to everyone living according to whatever they believe is right, individually (i.e. moral relativism).  This then leads to a very self- or me-centered society, where the People — as a whole — stop caring for others.  People lose the sense of community until, eventually, this decay reaches down into the fundamental building block of all societies, the family.  Once the family starts to fall apart, and the parents — even if actually in the home — are no longer ‘present,’ a void is created.  This void is then filled by either a dictator who presents themselves a god (i.e. a sun king) or the State, which presents itself as god.  Either way, the result is that the people fall into idolatry and, in this particular case, it is the very form described in 2 Thessalonians 2:

2 Thessalonians 2  New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Man of Lawlessness

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.

Now, I have no desire to get into a debate over whether or not this passage refers to the ‘antichrist’ or not — not in this post, anyway.  But what I would ask believers to consider is this:

What if Paul means for us to read this as the second person plural: as any man who takes his seat in the Temple of God [in this age, that being the heart of the believer] and says to himself in his heart that he is god?

If this is what Paul was actually trying to warn us against, then how have we not entered such a time?  We may call it moral relativism, but isn’t it a delusion in which many people think they can make sweet, sour or turn right into wrong just by saying it is so?  Certainly this is not much different from saying that a male can become female just because he ‘feels’ like a female today, only to switch back to male again tomorrow — or vice verse.  Scripturally, the bottom line is that this is depraved lawlessness, which falls squarely within the realm of past periods in Israel’s history:

Isaiah 5:20-23

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who [n]substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who [o]substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!
22 Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine
And valiant men in mixing strong drink,
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away the [p]rights of the ones who are in the right!

I ask you, dear reader: is this not the current condition of our society?  So, how did we get here?  I’ll tell you how: we got here by dismissing those who tried to warn us we were sliding down the slippery slope.  We dismissed the warnings as fallacious nonsense and, as a result, we started compromising with lawlessness.  Once we started down that path, one thing lead to another — just as it always has and always will.  If it helps to think of it in ‘scientific’ terms, think of it like the second law of thermodynamics for society (i.e. all things tend to decay).  In a closed system, you have to maintain a certain energy level or things start to fall apart — decay.  Well, the same thing happens in a society.  Morality is the energy that holds civil society together, and that energy is sustained by a belief in God and God’s judgment.  If you remove God, then you lose morality and society starts to decay.  This is exactly what Voltaire meant when he said:

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”

The truth is: nothing short of a Spiritual Awakening is going to ‘save’ this country.  Believers need to accept this fact and act accordingly.  Perhaps it would be best if we were to start sharing the Gospel message with a boldness the world has not seen since the last Awakening while, at the same time, preparing for a persecution the likes of which the world has not seen since the last Jihad in the Middle East because, dear reader, these are the two choices now facing those who choose to cling to the Lord and His Word.

 

ADDITIONAL READING ON THIS SUBJECT:

Blurred Lines