THE JEWS: CAMPUS CHAOS

 As one author has suggested, don't call it "antisemitism." That word has a multisyllabic soft sound. Call it what it is, Jew-hatred. Jew-hatred has erupted on many college campuses, Columbia University, Yale, Harvard, New York University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the University of Chicago, Princeton, the University of Virginia, Emory University, Brown University, Tufts, Michigan State University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, SUNY Purchase, SUNY Rockland, Swarthmore, Brown, Cal Poly, The University of Texas (no surprise there) and the University of Southern California. All of those institutes of "higher" learning earned an "F" regarding protecting Jewish students. 

At New York University, a frenzied mob of Jew-hating students clashed with police in hand-to-hand combat that looked like what it was, anarchy. Columbia's Jewish students were blocked from classes even though they paid tuition like everybody else. The university rabbi at Columbia told Jewish students: "Get out! Get out now!"They were in danger. The atmosphere of white hot Jew-hatred is so bad, the  administration has surrendered--no more on-campus classes for the rest of the semester. The Jew-haters won and now are vowing to stay on. 

The University of Southern California has canceled its main graduation ceremony. The school canceled the valedictorian’s planned commencement speech last week after the Muslim student, Asna Tabassum, was accused by multiple organizations of openly trafficking in Jew hatred on social media where a link she promoted featured propaganda that called for the complete eradication  of Israel.

Look at this current generation. It's a generation about which some are saying is the first generation in America to gain adulthood completely isolated from the Bible. (Others say they're the second generation in such an illiterate condition, but there's no need to quibble, the result is the same.)

The point is that this generation has been taught that Genesis is filled with, in the words of C. S. Lewis, "fabulous stories." Yes, THAT C. S. Lewis. By "fabulous" he meant "incredible" as in, "not credible." He didn't mean great sweeping accounts. He held to the idea that, "There’s no reason why God, who spoke to ancient Israelites “in their weakness, after the manner of their language could not adapt familiar myths so 'that they might come to understanding.'" 

Then, being taught that Genesis is a book of adapted mythology from the pagans around them, there's only one result possible: there was no call of Abraham, there was no God-promised land given to his descendanats, and, while you're at it, you can give a never-mind to Genesis 12:3b: "Those who curse you [Israel] I will curse" as a warning from God. 

Here's a guarantee: had the present generation been taught a literal hermeneutic in interpreting the Bible; had they been instructed in classical dispensationalism a la` Ryrie, Chafer, Walvoord, and Pentecost, there would be no the uproar, no chaos on American campuses, a chaos which is now showing up even in indoctrinated high schools as students walk out of class to show their support for Hamas. We would hear no chants of "Death to Israel. Death to America" in our land. 

The chickens just won't stop coming home to roost.

American churches should be standing in support of Israel but where are they? They are soaked in Amillennialism which the Reformers like Luther and Calvin taught. Luther, in his later years, wrote a book, "On the Jews and Their Lies," an 80+ page rant of promoting Jew-hatred to the point of  violence. 

Kurt Hendel, professor emeritus of Reformation history at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, said of the Nazis, "In November 1933, the Nazis marked the 450th anniversary of Luther’s birth with a nationwide 'German Luther Day.' Nazi Party leaders praised Luther’s “ethno-nationalist mission,” and called their movement 'the completion of the German Reformation in the Third Reich.' Nazi propagandists also celebrated the fact that the infamous Kristallnacht night of violence against Jews [destroying their synagogues] in 1938 fell on Luther’s birthday." 

One Jewish professor at Columbia University summed it up-- "I went to bed on October 7, 2023, and woke up the next morning in 1933." 

From one coast to the other, we are witnessing myriads of students, faculty, and outside Jew haters creating mayhem and chanting slogans in support of a terrorist organization of Jew-haters that, on October7, 2023, murdered 1,400 innocent people, and had orders to kill everyone they saw, including beheading victims and cutting off their legs.They went from home to home, from room to room, throwing grenades and killing everyone, including women and children. Hamas ordered them to crush their heads and cut them off. Further photographic evidence shows a burned baby, gunmen shooting the dead bodies of civilians in cars, militants in the process of beheading a body with a hoe, and  burnt corpses thrown in a dumpster.

We are seeing the fulfilling of Romans 8:28 live and in living color: "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind,"Depravity" as in supporting the the savages who behead, burn and kill women children, and infants.

From university to university, we are not seeing educated minds. We are staring at depraved, deranged, and  demonic minds on a rampage of evil.

 

THE KICKOFF! SUPER BOWL SUNDAY

This time of year, Easter, we get mail from various local churches about joining them for their Easter service. I've noticed a common thread in each invitation. One church sent out an invitation to "Come 'Chick' Us Out." Another encouraged my attendance for an Easter egg hunt. Then there was one church that wanted me to attend so I could "experience" something. There was going to be an "experience" for the youth and an "experience" for the adults but exactly what that was to be was left unspecified. 

One suspects that whatever the experiences were to be, they were part of something wider, a common denominator--"Come to our church because it's fun!" 

No matter the occasion, a current theme is that when you attend, you'll have fun. This is evident in the recent spate of churches on what's become a national holiday--Super Bowl Sunday. The Super Bowl Sunday "services" by many a megachurch are advertised as over- the-top -fun. A prime example was the now infamous service which opened with a man and a woman facing each other while a referee in full garb presided over a coin toss on the platform to see who would receive and who would kick off. 

And what was the kicking team to use for a football?  A Bible. Yes. One member of the team puts a Bible or a facsimile of a Bible (it makes no difference) upright on the platform -- he kneels as he hold the Bible upright, in place and the kicker approaches it and kicks the Scriptures as hard and as far as she (the pastor) could, to the delight of the fun-loving crowd.

Now this wasn't some devilish place masquerading as a church. It was what people today would call and refer to a a church, the big one on the street with thousands of attendees every Sunday..

It gets worse. As the music plays, a man dressed as a referee swings back and forth riding on a wrecking ball before the cheering crowd. (What that had to do with anything connected to football, your guess is as good as mine.) 

The time the staff must have spent on the pyrotechnics, orchestration, equipment, rehearsals, and money on all of this would be beyond our imaginations. "Money" meaning people's offerings to support such a monstrosity as that church put on.

You can see this descent into madness or, better yet, into blasphemy by going to https://www.youtube.com/shorts/l3nAzUh_3wI. 

Keep a discerning eye out for the invitations you receive this Easter or any other time from various churches and note what's missing more often than not--are they inviting you to attend a service featuring expositional teaching of the Word of God? Does the invitation say anything about preaching? A good guess would be, "No."

IS THERE BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FEEDING, HOUSING, ETC. OF ILLEGAL ALIENS?

 The recent inundation of illegal aliens (euphemistically called "newcomers") has riven, rocked, and.raged the nation. There are those however, who say there's a text in the Bible that commands the housing, clothing, feeding, and seeing to the needs of the newcomers, after all, they say, that's what Christ wants us to do.

In a recent television panel discussion on the matter, a pious pundit pointed to the words of Jesus when He said, "Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; ³⁶ naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ ³⁷ Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? ³⁸ And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? ³⁹ When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ ⁴⁰ The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

As an aside, it's always amazing how people will often quote those verses as absolute truth, yet, the same pious pundit will furiously disagree with Jesus' words in John 14:6 as authoritative. Nor during a TV panel discussion will John 3:16 ever cross their lips.

But I digress. What they are doing is defining "one of the least of these brothers of Mine" as anyone who is hungry, distressed, needy. Hence, the illegal alien fits their definition of "the least of these, brothers of Mine." 

Going farther, a prominent Christian pastor, author, activist, and speaker believes that one’s eternal destiny hinges on performing works of love and mercy toward others. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church, which influences a billion Catholics, sees Matt 25:31–46 in this same way

But hold on. We can state that the cardinal rule of interpretation in one word: context, context, context. The context of Matthew 25:24-40 answers the questions of to whom does Christ refer as being "brothers of Mine" and what is the context of verses 34-40 ?

CONTEXT: THE TIME 

Matthew 25:31-46 describes a future judgment beginning with: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.” So Jesus is talking about His 2nd Coming and a judgment at that time to ascertain who will inherit in His Kingdom.

CONTEXT: WHO IS CHRIST JUDGING? 

That's easy: “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.” The word for nations can also be translated Gentiles and is used that way in hundreds of biblical texts. These would be gentiles who survive the Great Tribulation since Jesus 2nd Advent occurs at the end of the Great Tribulation. 

Following this gathering before the King, Gentiles are separated into two groups for judgment. The first assemblage (the sheep) is gathered to the right of Jesus, the place of honor. To members of this group He proclaims: “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

CONTEXT: WHO ARE THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN?

This question brings us the the crux of the matter. Are "the least of these my brethren" anyone who is  hungry, distressed, and needy?" Both groups to be judged at this assessment are Gentiles divided into the sheep and the goats. In fact, since these two groups—the sheep and the goats—represent all of the Gentile Tribulation survivors, so the demonstrative pronoun “these” must consist of Jews. Since Jesus refers to them as His brethren, it would make sense that they are His brethren in a physical sense.

CONTEXT: THE HELP THE JEWS WILL NEED

During the last half of the Tribulation, Satan will empower the antichrist to “make war” against Jewish believers in Christ and to overcome them. He will issue the command for his army to hunt them down to arrest or kill them.

In order for Jewish followers of Christ to survive, they will need to flee immediately upon the occurrence of the abomination of desolation; they will not be afforded the time to grab anything to take with them—no possessions, money, extra clothing, etc.; nor will they be able to buy or sell anything since they will not receive the mark of the beast.

As a result, these Jewish believers in Christ will need others to meet their basic needs throughout the Great Tribulation. These necessities are addressed in Matt 25:35–36 in which Jesus declares His brethren will be hungry, thirsty, strangers, and in need of clothing. In addition, some will require medical attention, while others, captured by troops sent out by Satan’s world ruler, will need people to attend to their necessities in prison. They will be in desperate need of help.

Therefore, Christ's words have no application to those millions breaking into our country illegally and no believer or unbeliever is under any obligation to give aid or comfort to criminals. The answer to the title of this blog is, NO!"

 

 

 

 

.

JESUS EXPLAINS THE NEW BIRTH BUT SHE DIDN'T

 

The following is an open letter I sent to an author featured on the "Townhall" website. Her credits comprise a lengthy list including: "being a media producer and conservative political/religious writer. She is a regular op-ed contributor to Townhall, The Hill, RealClearPolitics, National Review, Washington Examiner, RealClearReligion, PJ Media, RedState, Breitbart, Daily Caller, The Daily Beast, and more."

The title of her article is "Jesus Explains the New Birth." My letter is in response:

 

I read with interest your recent column in Townhall about being born again and Jesus' explanation of it. You hit on a vital topic as recorded in John 3. There are several things you mentioned concerning Jesus' explanation of the subject that bear examination that I would like to point out.

In discussing the new birth, you wrote, "With this rebirth, one can be redeemed after turning away from sin in the mind and body while trusting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." As I've read John 3 many times, there is something that troubles me and that is the requirement, "one must turn away from sin in mind and body" as being necessary for the new birth. I find it problematic for the following reasons:

1) I'm not able to turn from sin;

2) the authors or speakers I've read or heard who make turning from sin in mind and body a requirement for salvation have not been able to turn from their own sins just ask their wives or husbands; they and I and you (if we're honest) still sin;

3) in the next chapter, Jesus converses with a promiscuous/adulterous woman and yet, He never tells her that she must turn from those sins in mind and body to receive the living water, i.e. the new birth,. He's offering her.

4) in Jesus' illustration to Nicodemus, he cites the serpent on the pole incident in which each one must only "look" to be saved. They did and were delivered and then later rebelled against the Lord. They could not turn from sin in mind and body;

 

5) in the Gospel of John, the book on which you based your article, faith alone as a requirement for being born again is stated 100 times. John states no requirement of turning from sin.

 

6) John says he wrote the book for an evangelistic purpose, that his that readers "might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that by believing, you might have eternal life." He doesn't make the impossible demand that one turn from his sins.

 

7) placing a demand to "turn from one's sins" is to say, "Clean up your life and then believe, and then you can be born again" which is injecting works into salvation and Paul writes that we are saved by faith apart from works; (Romans 3:28 & 4:6)

8) when Paul reminds the Corinthians of what the gospel is, he says nothing about turning from sins but conditions being born again on faith alone that Jesus is God; that Christ died for our sins; and that He rose from the dead (I Cor. 15:3-4) He says nothing about turning from one's sins.

 9) then, there is everyone's favorite verse, John 3:16, so familiar there's no need to quote it except to point out that turning from sin is absent from verse 16, saying only "whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

10) leaving the Gospel of John, Genesis 15:6 is consistent with the New Testament in that "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness." Abraham didn't turn from sin as evidenced by the fact that he later lied about his wife, a lie which put her in danger in a pagan king's harem. Then there was his infamous plan to have a child by Hagar.

11) Jesus didn't tell Nicodemus to turn from his sin. The word "sin" does not occur in John 3.

You wrote on the subject of the new birth because you rightly believed it to be of vital importance. I find that to be the case with Paul because he called the gospel of "first importance." In Galatians 1, Paul says that a "gospel" of faith + works is no gospel at all. 

 

Therefore, a gospel of works has never resulted in a single new birth and never will. There is no good news in a "gospel" of faith plus works. It is my hope that you will search the Scriptures to see "f these things be true. A search of the  Scriptures will result in the fact that salvation is conditioned on faith alone in Christ alone apart from works. .

Yours truly,

Dr. Michael D. Halsey

CALVINISM'S TWO MONSTER'S

 

 

"We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death." - John Calvin, Harmony of the Law, Vol 2, "Judicial Supplements", Comments on Deut ch 13.

Wait. a. minute. O, me. Can you wrap your mind around that statement? John Calvin is saying that when a baby dies, that's a sure and certain proof that he's one of the non-elect and therefore he wakes up in hell and will be there forever. That's what he is saying, and, as one author commented, "I don’t say this lightly, but that honestly is the most horrific and disgusting theological doctrine I’ve ever heard in my life" What a cold-as-stone-statement that is. Would you say that to grieving parents? Who would put that on a sympathy card? Would you say that to the mourning mother that her baby is in hell for the good pleasure of God and for His glory?"

One perceptive author writes, "Once we dismiss the pleasantries of Calvinism, the only reason some are in heaven and some are in hell [babies included, according to Jon Calvin]  is because it pleased God for them to be there. Notwithstanding the weak and misleading arguments to the contrary by many Calvinists, . . .Calvin refers to this cold, inescapable reality as the product of God’s wish, pleasure, and counsel."

The infant never had a chance, not one single opportunity to look up at the sky and think,"Who created this majestic precision of the universe? I'd like to know Him; I never had an opportunity to hear the gospel. This isn't fair. What kind of a God would do such a thing to me!"

Oh, wait a minute. There are Calvinists who would disagree and say, "No. God doesn't consign a baby to hell." As one wrote: "But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord."

But wait another minute. He said "willful decision" didn't he? According to his Calvinism, such a decision can't be "willful" because, in eternity past, God predetermined that he would reject Christ or accept Christ. 

But wait another minute.He wrote that the infant is incapable of trusting Christ (and rightly so). But that creates a monster problem for the Calvinist. According to Calvinism, in eternity past God unconditionally chose some to go to heaven and some (billions and billions and billions) for His good pleasure and glory to go to hell. 

Those billions in hell had no say, no choice in the matter. They are "dead" in trespasses and sin and are, all of their lives, incapable of trusting Christ and all of that was decided by God in eternity past, so says the Calvinist.

So the monster problem is, the infant had no choice; the adult who lives a full life has no choice either. One just lived longer with no choice than the other. Neither one had any control over the situation.So how could it be said that the infant goes to heaven and the adult does not since both never had a choice according to Calvin. Can anybody say, "Inconsistent?" Can anybody say, "Contradictory?"

Roger Olson, professor of Baylor's Truett Theological Seminary, writes, "In spite of their best efforts to avoid it, the 'good and necessary consequence' of their [the Calvinists'] soteriology—TULIP—is that God is morally ambiguous if not a moral monster."

LORDSHIP SALVATION: DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE

 The following statements come from various advocates of the Calvinistic position of Lordship salvation (the position that saving faith includes a vow of commitment, surrender, submission, and turning from sin to following Christ in obedience to His commands). This in direct opposition to the biblical "Faith alone in Christ Alone." I will give the name of the person to whom the quote is to be attributed so that you may be forewarned to beware of such teachers and authors. 

Here's what the Lordship Salvationists declare:

"The only thing that makes you acceptable to God is a pattern of obedience to the Word of God that is the product of repentance and genuine faith in Jesus Christ and truly abandoning your life to obedience to His lordship." John MacArthur

"We are not born again if we aren't living differently than if we weren't. People who claim to be born again but don't change aren't saved. I think if you don't believe in Christ as your financial advisor, you aren't saved." John Piper 

"Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing.” John MacArthur

"The astonishing idea is current in some circles today that we can enjoy the benefits of Christ's salvation without accepting the challenge of His sovereign lordship.Such an unbalanced notion is not to be found in the New Testament." James Montgomery Boice 

"Evangelists say, it takes only 5 minutes [to become a Christian]. NO my friends, it will take your life." Paul Washer

"You cannot cling to sin and to the Savior at the same time." John MacArthur

"In our own presentation of Christ’s gospel, therefore, we need to lay a similar stress as Christ did on the cost of following Christ, and make sinners face it soberly before we urge them to respond to the message of free forgiveness.” J. I. Packer

"Faith is essential for salvation. But we must be absolutely clear on what we mean when we speak of “salvation by faith.” There are various kinds of belief or faith, and not all are linked to salvation. In the New Testament, faith means more than intellectual belief. It involves trust and commitment." The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

"I talked about the young man’s need to surrender his whole life, his future, his ambitions, his relationships, his possessions, and everything he was to God. Only if he was prepared to do this, my friend explained, could Christ begin to work effectively in his life." Anonymous

"One thing that marks the difference between a true believer and a false believer and that is a pattern of living, eager submissive obedience to the Word of God." John MacArthur

"Saving faith must be obedient faith." James White (This fellow has other problems as we'll see next week. Serious problems.)

"You need to believe that Jesus is God and that He died for your sins, committing your whole life to Him in sacrifice and serving Him as Lord." John MacArthur

"Submission to the will of God, to Christ’s lordship, and to the guiding of the Spirit is an essential, not an optional, part of saving faith" John MacArthur.

"These, then, are the essential elements of the gospel: the sin of all men, the death of Christ on the cross to pay for those sins, the resurrection of Christ to provide life everlasting for those who follow Him, and the offer of the free gift of salvation to all. gotquestions.org (Following Him is a discipleship truth, not a part of the gospel)

"Saving faith is a placing of oneself totally in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ"John MacArthur

"If you have true faith that faith will immediately , necessarily and inherently produce the fruit of sanctification." R. C. Sproul

"Faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone." David Guzik (This statement is a logical fallacy.)

"To define saving faith apart from feeling slash emotions, slash  affectations of glad dependence, fervent acclamation, pleased submission, centered resting, thrilled treasuring, eager reverence, heartfelt adoration, is futile." John Piper.

"Repentance is an old fashioned word which means to confess and forsake you sins because you don't want to be a hypocrite and say, 'I believe but I still lie and steal." Ray Comfort

"It's the doers who are saved. The gospel is a call to discipleship." John MacArthur 

"There are two things you must do to be saved. You must repent. Turn from all sins, no more lying, no more lust, no more blasphemy and trust in Jesus. You shouldn't let foul words come out of your mouth" Ray Comfort ((He often proclaims these words with a bull horn to passersby.)

The fallout from lordship salvation has serious repercussions:

1. Works become part of the definition of faith. (but, Romans 3:28)

2. It robs the believer of his assurance of salvation. (How much submission, obedience are enough?)

3. It produces confusion.

4. It takes the focus off the finished work of Christ and puts the spotlight on the performance of the believer.

5. It is a "gospel" that has yet to save anyone. (The message of a lordship salvationist is not good news.)

6. Children cannot be saved. (But, Acts16:32)

7. It's multitude of requirements are impossible to attain, such as "turn from ALL your sin." Even the erroneous evangelist hasn't done that. (I Jn. 1:10 was written to believers.)

8. In reference to the demand of "commitment," how many times has a believer "committed," "had to commit again, then again and once more and once more? The thief on the cross didn't "commit," didn't make Christ his financial advisor, didn't

How Paul's answer to the question of "How to be saved," we read, "“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31)

In the conversation with the woman at the well in John 4 about salvation, see if you can find a verse in which Jesus tells her to stop living with a man who was not her husband. Let me know when you find the verse.

I close with, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, ² by which also you are saved, if you hold fast ^[a]the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

³ For I delivered to you ^[b]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures^{." That's it; faith alone.}

 

DO POLITICAL PRIMARIES MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

It has begun, the  political campaign season, that is. The two parties are holding their primaries to certify their respective nominees for the president of the United States. The political season has begun. Really? Not really, no it hasn't. We're subjected to politics immediately after the election of a new president or the retention of the old. Immediately after the winner is declared, we hear of the possible candidates four years down the  road and those seeking the position start gearing up their fundraising machines, the taking of polls, and the "experts" start talking about who the front runners are. There is no surcease the politics of primaries, ballots, speeches, and promises. It wearies the soul. Will all of this make a difference and save the republic?

Unfortunately in the midst of this around-the-clock and year political banter, speeches, and posturing, we've forgotten something somebody told us decades ago but we didn't listen then and aren't listening now. He did warn us, you know, but we had ears of stone.

The one who came to warn us was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn a Nobel Prize winner in Literature in 1970. When he came to America, his warnings began. He said, "The strength or weakness of a society depends more on it's spiritual life than its level of industrialization. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect governmental structure. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." (Pause and think about that.)

One of the Founding Fathers said the same: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams) In other words, character counts. 

It was most interesting a few decades ago to listen to what the liberal establishment had as their talking point in defense of President Clinton when his adulterous character made headlines; "We elected a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief." Like most sloganeering, this one rings hollow.

Michael Brown was correct when he wrote: "I’m not keen on the line, “But we’re electing a president, a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief.” But when it’s used to justify voting for someone who has a long track record of being ruthless, cruel, unchristian, immoral, profane, full of pride, greedy, and double-minded, then I have a real problem with it. . . .Does the fact that we’re electing a president, not a pastor mean that the president doesn’t need to have a solid moral base? That he doesn’t need integrity? That he can mistreat and abuse others? That he can be petulant, self-centered, and nasty? That ethics don’t matter since he’s our political leader not our spiritual leader? . . .I will confront the empty, 'We’re not electing a pastor-in-chief” slogan wherever I find it.'"

Let's switch gears and move to the local church. When God instructed Paul to lay out the qualifications for being an elder, 86.6% of them have to do with the man's character. It bears repeating, character counts. 

As we tread on the tiresome path of politics, politics, politics,  we see Solzhenitsyn standing by the side of the road, pointing to a large sign with large letters: A TREE WITH A ROTTEN CORE CANNOT STAND."