Kavanaugh, Accusations, & Evil Intent

As I’m sure many of you have, I’ve listened carefully to all the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. Why? I want only people of sterling character in important positions in government. I also watched the interview Martha McCallum of Fox News conducted with him. I wanted to see how he would respond to the controversy that has erupted concerning his nomination to the Supreme Court.

By the way, a Supreme Court nomination never should have this degree of importance. It is important, true. Yet our system of governing is so out of line with what the Founders intended that we now deem a seat on the Court almost as significant as the choice for president. Any conservative who seeks to accept that nomination is usually in for a trial by fire. One must be willing to have one’s reputation blown away.

Kavanaugh, in the interview, was obviously tense. Who wouldn’t be, after all the sordid accusations? He also kept repeating the same lines: his desire for a fair process; the opportunity to defend his reputation and integrity. While he could have been less robotic in his responses, I understand his concern to keep the focus where it belongs—that there is no substance to the charges being leveled against him.

He came across to me as a kind, thoughtful man, seeking to exhibit grace under duress. He refused to speculate about the motives of the accusers, both the women themselves and the Democrats who want to ensure he never takes that seat on the Court.

Clarence Thomas, when he suffered the same type of trial during his confirmation hearings, didn’t hold back. He let the world know that there was evil intent in the effort to block him. I respected that because the intent was so blatantly obvious. That same animus is evident toward Kavanaugh. A man with an unblemished record prior to these accusations (the FBI already did a full background check) has been dragged through the mud.

Of course, he’s not the only one in the mud. He didn’t choose to be there, but others have jumped in voluntarily.

If anyone ever had any doubts about the level to which we have sunk in our current politics, the Democrats have now erased all such doubts:

Kavanaugh has been a victim, to be sure. Yet there’s another victim rarely mentioned:

Why, some may ask? Why have all the stops been pulled out in this attempt to derail someone who is so greatly respected as a judge that even the liberal-leaning ABA gave him its highest rating? What is behind it all?

I have a simple answer: abortion.

If Kavanaugh were merely replacing another conservative justice—as when Gorsuch replaced Scalia—the animus would never have been this great. The problem is that he’s replacing Kennedy, and the fear on the Left is that this means the Court will now have a solid conservative majority for many years.

At the root of that fear is the moral depravity of abortion-on-demand. Nothing, in the fevered brains of the Leftist radical feminist movement, can be permitted to interfere with the “right” to kill unwanted, yet innocent, children.

Yes, this is where we are now as a nation.

My hope for Brett Kavanaugh—and for the nation—can be found in the poignant words of the prophet Isaiah, chapter 54:

No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the LORD.

May it be, Lord. May it be.

Three “Supreme” Supreme Court Decisions

First was the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court decision, reversing Colorado’s order against the baker who wouldn’t make a special cake for a same-sex wedding due to his Christian convictions.

Two days ago, the Court gave Barronnelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington state, a big boost by vacating the order imposed on her by her state, followed by remanding the case back to Washington courts. I’ll have someone explain why that’s a win in a couple of paragraphs from now.

Then yesterday, that same Court (which we often love to hate) told California that it cannot force pro-life organizations to promote abortion services.

Some on the conservative side have commented that the Masterpiece decision was too narrow; their concerns are valid, but so far it isn’t playing out that way.

The organization that took the lead in arguing all three of these cases is Alliance Defending Freedom. Michael Farris, the president, CEO, and lead counsel for ADF has some pertinent comments on these decisions. He notes on the Stutzman case,

“Granted” means that the Court agreed to hear her case. But it heard it summarily and issued an immediate order.

“Vacated” is that order. The prior decision is wiped off the books.

Remanded means that it was sent back to the Washington courts to reconsider in light of the Masterpiece decision.

This is very good news in at least two ways.

First, it protects Barronelle for the time being. And gives her a real chance for a full victory.

Second, it shows that the Masterpiece decision is not narrow as many claimed. It has precedential effect and was not limited to the Colorado facts.

In the other case, known as NIFLA, Farris commented,

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that California violated the First Amendment rights of prolife pregnancy centers by requiring them to advertise for abortions and make other unfavorable disclosures.

The case will be remanded but the directions given by the Supreme Court are extremely strong.

Here’s some of what the justices said, first from Clarence Thomas:

When the government polices the content of professional speech, it can fail to “preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.” If States could choose the protection that speech receives simply by requiring a license, they would have a powerful tool to impose “invidious discrimination of disfavored subjects.”

Then Anthony Kennedy, of all people, wrote this:

This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression. For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.

In response to California’s claim that what it was promoting was “forward thinking,” Kennedy offered this succinct and powerful history lesson:

It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come.

Powerful and poignant words.

ADF’s website, shortly after the announcement of the NIFLA decision, rejoiced over the decision:

Pro-life pregnancy centers in California will no longer be forced to be a mouthpiece for the abortion industry.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech, striking down a California law that would force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion. . . .

What’s even worse is the fact that this law specifically singles out pro-life pregnancy centers. Drafted, proposed, and supported by abortion advocates, this law is a thinly-veiled attempt to target a viewpoint that the state of California doesn’t like and replace it with the government-approved viewpoint.

This is government-compelled speech at its worst. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled that this requirement is unconstitutional.

This ruling makes it clear that no one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion.

Yet, as ADF acknowledges, the fight goes on:

And while this is a crucial victory, the work is not done. Unfortunately, California is not the only state that is trying to stamp out the pro-life message. ADF is also challenging similar laws in Illinois and Hawaii.

That’s why we must stay vigilant.

I’m thankful for organizations like ADF who maintain that vigilance. But keep in mind these are victories via law only; the culture remains to be redeemed from this ready acceptance of the abortion holocaust and the sexual agenda that is being pushed on everyone. The Christian message must continue to go forth in love and strength of purpose.

What Alfie Evans Should Mean to Us

Alfie Evans is now with our loving God. That’s what I believe. More on that later in this post.

But that doesn’t excuse how he was treated by a callous society.

Some have commented that this despicable treatment cannot be laid at the feet of a socialized healthcare system, that it could have happened simply by any insurance company in the private sector refusing to provide further aid to a child they deemed unlikely to live anyway.

While it is true that an insurance company could have come to the same decision as the British National Health Service, the latter has far more power to make that which is despicable even more despicable.

A government entity can do what a private insurance firm cannot: deny the parents their parental right to remove their child from the system and choose to go elsewhere for medical help. In Britain, the courts ruled that the parents had to step aside and obey what the government decided: your child, in essence, belongs to the state, and the all-knowing, all-wise state will determine whether that child will live or die.

And if you speak out against that determination, be warned: you will be liable to prosecution.

No private insurance company can do any of that. It can only occur when government takes the reins and says it is the final judge of who is worth saving.

That is a moral degeneration of the most horrendous sort. When some in America warned of death panels with the passage of Obamacare, they were ridiculed by the system’s supporters. That would never happen, they retorted. Don’t be so alarmist.

Perhaps some of those deniers will now have second thoughts? I hope so.

My belief that Alfie Evans is now in the presence of his Creator, Father, and Lover of His Soul is the ultimate comfort in the midst of this heartwrenching action by the government.

So, if that’s my belief, some might say, why are you so concerned about what has happened? After all, Alfie is certainly in the best place possible.

My concern is what this says about us, what it means for nations like Britain and America. It reveals a seared conscience that doesn’t allow the sacredness of life to guide our thoughts and actions. It leads to a horrible dehumanization of humans, a devaluation of value implanted by God in each individual.

We are made in God’s image. But ever since the introduction of abortion as a mechanism to remove an unwanted human being from our lives—too inconvenient to raise a child right now, or that child has too many problems (Downs Syndrome as one example)—our disregard for that image of God in each of us has hastened our fall into the pit of hell as a people.

It began with abortion. It increasingly extends to those at the other end of the life cycle—they are too expensive; they don’t contribute anything anymore; let’s rush them into death. Now, as with Alfie, infanticide is becoming more accepted, more “natural.”

God’s love leads a society in an altogether different direction, a direction that values the life of all people, but especially those most vulnerable, the ones who cannot defend themselves.

Are we on a slippery slope that cannot be reversed? Will we descend into greater depths of callousness and depravity?

Those who name the name of Christ and declare Him to be the salvation of the world need to stand strong in these times and be that proverbial “sore thumb” that bothers the consciences of those who are on that slope. The Christian witness is the only hope for changing men’s minds and hearts.

God is currently blessing Alfie Evans. May we help spread His blessings to this needy world.

What Has Changed?

In a society like ours, which now tends to view all things through a political lens and thinks there are legislative solutions for all problems, we focus on making external changes—gun control being one of those.

Pass a new law, we’re told, and we will wipe out the problem. Of course, that cry ignores the reality that we already have laws on the books that supposedly will stop shootings—but they don’t.

Whenever we think that tinkering with laws will save us, we are looking past the the real influences that cater to our sinfulness.

Guns have been around throughout all of American history. Only recently have we experienced tragedies like what occurred at the Parkland school. What’s changed? How about what we consider “normal” for entertainment? How about the rejection of the absolute laws of eternal right and wrong?

I’m not saying we shouldn’t take external precautions against man’s sinfulness. That doesn’t necessarily mean arming all teachers, but there can be a deterrence if evil men know they will be met with more-than-equal force if they attempt something.

At my university, we have an arrangement with local law enforcement that allows individuals on the campus to be trained in the use of firearms in a shooter situation. No one knows which individuals have that training; we don’t know where the guns are located, but we have an assurance that if a situation should arise, we don’t have to wait for the police to arrive before taking steps to counter the evil.

I like that assurance. It values human life. It is a proper, Biblical concept of self-defense. And it can make a potential killer think twice before acting.

Gun-free zones are an open invitation to violence, not a preventative.

I also want us to keep some perspective:

While we should be concerned about all incidents of violence that lead to the death of innocents, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who doesn’t see the greatest violence of all against the innocent.

Many people posturing about gun control and displaying angst over the fate of our children in the schools have nothing at all to say about abortion, the biggest killer of all. Some are even strident supporters of abortion while simultaneously, and sanctimoniously, decrying violence toward others.

We have drifted so far from God’s moral law that it is no wonder we are suffering now. Neither would it be unjust of God to bring judgment for our callousness.

Parkland Solutions–Real & Imagined

For out of the heart come evil thoughts–murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Matthew 15:19

After watching many news reports and reading many commentaries about the Parkland, Florida, school shooting that resulted in seventeen deaths, nothing I’ve seen or read has changed my mind about the basic issue that leads to such atrocities: the sinfulness of man.

We hear many loud voices calling for new legislation against gun ownership, as if that’s some kind of final solution for the problem of sin. Yet we have had gun ownership in this country since its founding. Many lives have been spared by the proper use of guns as a means of self-defense against sinful men.

Guns are not the problem. People are. And our culture, which drifts steadily away from the fear of God and from His truth, only makes that problem worse.

Then we get a CNN Townhall that allows grieving young people to display their angst and try to set public policy via emotion rather than principle and sound reflection. Some may think they are the source of wisdom, but I don’t, especially if they are merely spouting a distorted worldview they have received through our perverted culture.

The Biblical admonition about how a little child shall lead them is part of a prophecy of Isaiah in reference to when God will set up His kingdom on earth in the last days. It’s when the lion will lie down with the lamb.

We’re not there yet. We shouldn’t let the immature be our policymakers.

Those who think that legislation is the answer are seeking a utopia—a word that basically translates as “no such place.”

Yes, laws can help, if they are the right kind, based on a realistic view of man’s sinfulness. But any law that takes away the means for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is a law that will lead to even greater atrocities.

We are told by some that if we turn in all the guns, we can be confident that our law enforcement agencies will be able to defend us. Trust them, we are told.

How did that work out in this case?

The FBI received numerous calls about the potential for Nikolas Cruz to go off the deep end. It did nothing. The Broward County police responded to numerous incidents with Cruz over the past years. They did nothing.

The Broward County deputy who was assigned to protect the school hid outside, never even attempting to confront the shooter. The county’s sheriff is making a fool of himself in interviews after the fact. He is arrogant, defending himself, and blaming everyone else.

Let me also say something here about the organization that is getting pilloried over this, as it always does after a shooting. The NRA (for the record, I’m not a member) is a respectable organization devoted to gun safety. The one time I went to an NRA firing range, I was tested first, then instructed carefully on how to use the weapons.

The NRA is not the enemy of the people.

Politicians like to get their names in the headlines after these terrible incidents. The one who stands out to me this time is California Senator Kamala Harris, who responded to Parkland with this:

This cannot be a political issue. We have to have smart gun safety laws – our babies are being slaughtered.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Yet Kamala Harris promotes the slaughter of babies all the time, as she is a vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand.

She is not a serious voice, and should be ignored, as should all politicians who wrap themselves in the cloak of protecting our children while simultaneously applauding the killing of the most innocent.

So are we a “sick” society? Wrong word. We are a sinful, depraved society. Scripture also informs us that the problem goes much deeper even than human sinfulness.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6:12

The solution, also found in the larger context of that chapter, is to put on God’s full armor: truth, righteousness, the spreading of the Gospel message to “extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.”

There is an evil one out there, even though our society doesn’t want to believe that. Neither does the society want to believe that there is One who has overcome the evil one, and that we need to place our full confidence in Him:

Cast all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you. Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering. I Peter 5:7-9

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. James 4:7-8

These Scriptures need to be our guide.

Shall We Retire the Term “Evangelical”?

I call myself an evangelical. What does that mean? “Evangel” means good news; an evangelist is someone who spreads good news; evangelicals, therefore, are those who believe in spreading the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So I like the term.

Yet it has come under scrutiny lately within the church because it seems to be losing its original meaning. Some are questioning whether it ought to be dropped as a description of those who follow Christ.

Most of that questioning stems from political developments. Evangelicals are now considered one of the “interest” groups in elections. Commentators examine their political clout and try to figure out how they will vote.

The problem, however, is the number and type of people who are lumped together under the name “evangelical.” They include those were who raised in the church but aren’t really faithful Christians. Many simply relate to the word evangelical because it’s part of their family tradition.

The word, then, has lost its real definition.

Let’s look at history for some guidance.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, the US experienced what historians describe as the Second Great Awakening. This revival of Christian faith spawned groups of believers who were tired of the division of Christians into denominations. They sought to get back to how they perceived the first-century church operated.

One group decided simply to call themselves Christians, as distinct from Congregationalist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. Another took the name Disciples of Christ in an attempt to identify as Christians only, without any denominational tag.

They even said they would not become official denominations; they were merely movements of like-minded Christians. Well, no matter the original intent, they coalesced into identifiable denominations regardless; it was a natural development.

So the attempt to be just “Christian” without any further label wasn’t wholly successful.

Toward the end of that century, with the new higher criticism of Biblical authority threatening to undermine basic Biblical doctrines, those who rejected that criticism called themselves “fundamentalists” because they were declaring their allegiance to the fundamentals of the faith.

As theological liberals who denied Biblical teachings such as the virgin birth of Christ began taking over the seminaries, the fundamentalists set up their own Bible colleges and seminaries to counter that denigration of the true faith.

Unfortunately, too many of the fundamentalists became rather rigid in their practices while simultaneously withdrawing from meaningful interaction with the world, avoiding politics, education, etc., and thereby losing influence in the culture.

Those who agreed with the concept of maintaining the fundamentals but who didn’t wish to be viewed in the same light as those who claimed that label, migrated to a new term: evangelicals.

The shock of the cultural changes of the 1960s-1970s, spurred by events such as Supreme Court rulings relegating the Bible and prayer to the periphery of social life and opening the floodgates of abortion led these evangelicals to get involved in the political arena to hold back—and hopefully reverse—that cultural tide.

In my opinion, evangelicals have tried their best to carry out that endeavor without rancor and in the hope of drawing people to the Truth, not only about personal salvation, but also about how the Christian faith ought to impact all aspects of our society’s culture.

Evangelicals, in the last election, eventually attached themselves to Donald Trump. Some did so reluctantly, knowing his many flaws, but unable to countenance the alternative. Others did so with genuine fervor, seeing Trump as God’s anointed/political savior, not only minimizing his history of poor character but actually applauding his in-your-face persona.

I have to admit that’s when I started wondering whether the word evangelical had lost so much of its flavor that it needed to be retired.

Yet, despite the watering-down of the term, the original definition remains. An evangelical is someone who knows the truth of the Gospel message and is determined to see that truth disseminated so that the chasm between God and man, created by our own sins, can be bridged through repentance and faith in what Christ has done for us.

Therefore, I’m not retiring the word. I’ll continue to use it to describe who I am. The evangel of God is the good news; I’m to be an evangelist of that good news; I am an evangelical.

Reviving Obamacare Repeal

A final attempt this year at Obamacare legislation is coming up for a vote in Congress next week. Will it advance the principle of eventually overturning the [Un]Affordable Care Act or will it leave too much in place? I’ll come back to that, but first some context.

Despite assurances to the contrary from progressives/Democrats, Obamacare fails on nearly every promise. It is not affordable and insurance companies are pulling out regularly. In some areas, there is only one company taking part, meaning consumers really have no choice.

Those who can’t bear to think of it going away are blind to its disastrous nature:

And when the word “entitlement” gets attached to anything, people feel they are, well . . . entitled. People worry, so they cling to false promises and ignore the reality.

Republicans have used Obamacare repeal and replace as a rallying cry ever since 2010. Many are sincere; others just wanted to stir the base to get reelected. When Republicans finally took both houses of Congress and the presidency, they had their chance to show their true colors. For some, the true color was yellow. The move to remove stalled.

Repeal would be easy, we were told. No problem. When it didn’t turn out that way, voters were given a substitute promise.

That hasn’t happened either, by the way.

Now we have a proposed bill that doesn’t repeal most Obamacare regulations, pre-existing conditions are still covered (too popular to touch), and it keeps spending money at a rapid rate.

So it should be rejected?

Here’s where principle comes in. If a new law moves the ball down the field, so to speak, and gets us closer to where we should be, isn’t that worth supporting? Take abortion, for instance. I believe all abortions are wrong, morally wrong. Some would say that any bill that allows any abortions at all to remain legal should be rejected. However, I would look at such a bill and say instead that many thousands of innocent lives can be saved with it and it should be passed.

It would get us closer to where we need to be.

This current Obamacare modification bill does the following:

  • It repeals the individual mandate.
  • It repeals the employer mandate.
  • Its block grant approach puts state governments in charge of the funds, allowing states to develop their own system, thereby reducing control by the federal government.
  • It defunds Planned Parenthood.

For all those reasons, especially the last one, Democrats will not support it.

For me, as I look at those benefits of the proposed bill, I believe it will advance the cause of eventually overturning this monstrous system. I therefore hope it will pass.

It’s one last opportunity this year to make a dent in something that never should have become the law of the land in the first place. Republican senators should find their courage, set aside petty concerns about whether their state will get enough funding, and vote to take this significant step in the right direction.